Not sure how it would work but if that is the plan all well and good.
It is the N.H.S I am more concerned about.Problaby that is the main reason Labour will win the next election.
|
If we were really daring, we could properly finance local authorities to purchase or build suitable houses for those most in need. These would be owned by the local authorities and tenants would pay a fair rent rather than having to pay colossal rents to private landlords and being subsidised through general taxation via housing benefit.
These properties could even be called Council Houses.
Oh.
|
A fair proportion of the homeless suffer from some form of mental health issue. If we were progressive we could even build hospitals to aid them
Oh
|
>> A fair proportion of the homeless suffer from some form of mental health issue. If
>> we were progressive we could even build hospitals to aid them
The irony is that most of them could live independently with the right support. Same applies to those with drink and other substance issues. That means moving them into their own place but with proper time commitment from social worker/community psychiatric nurse etc - or even just a 'buddy' to help them.
We did all that last time street homelessness began to impinge on the political agenda in the early nineties. John Major's government started off before 1992 election and the push continued for nearly two decades before running into the sands of austerity.
|
|
Most of them are on drugs or are alcoholics though and are virtually beyond help unless they decide they want to change their own lives. Find them a space to live out lives by all means and get them out of our city centre doorways. Begging in city centres has become a lifestyle choice for many. Shopkeepers pay enormous amounts in rates and rents. They deserve better
|
A great scheme.
The number of homeless would of course treble overnight.
|
We are still in "magic money tree" mode where will the money come from?
I for one, would not object to taxes going up sensibly to pay for the NHS, schools etc but it can't all come from a few and it can't all be spent on political point scoring
|
|
There's no silver bullet for homelessness...
|
>> There's no silver bullet for homelessness...
Actually, that would work but I'm not sure it would be deemed acceptable.
|
|
If being homeless gets you a house then I can guarantee a steep increase in homelessness under Jezza.
|
>> JC has no idea ....
>>
Only about his support for ci-devant terrorists.
Mind you his mate McDonnell is not only that, but a financial loon, who thinks Venezuela is skint as they are not socialist enough.
|
>> If being homeless gets you a house then I can guarantee a steep increase in
>> homelessness under Jezza.
Current situation is that you're far more likely to be unjustifiably refused help as homeless than to get help by subterfuge. Councils are very keen to prevent people even getting near the test for homelessness by a process known as gatekeeping.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatekeeping_(UK_housing_term)
blog.shelter.org.uk/2016/04/gatekeeping-council-accused-suicidal-client-of-queue-jumping/
nearlylegal.co.uk/2016/06/gatekeeping-special/
Northampton CA has a full time solicitor who spends about half his time dealing with this sort of stuff.
|
>> Most of them are on drugs or are alcoholics though and are virtually beyond help
>> unless they decide they want to change their own lives. Find them a space to
>> live out lives by all means and get them out of our city centre doorways.
They used to have places like that - The Workhouse. Oh!
|
>> It is the N.H.S I am more concerned about.Problaby that is the main reason Labour
>> will win the next election.
That, and policing, which has been cut to the point that it is no longer fit for purpose.
|
I note that his acolytes are now claiming that he has, once again, been mis-quoted; apparently commandeering 8,000 houses does not mean "a home for every homeless person".
I wonder how many of his fans would applaud loudly were he to instigate the project in his own constituency? Perhaps he could start by converting his allotment shed?
|
>> That, and policing, which has been cut to the point that it is no longer
>> fit for purpose.
Policing is now so utterly PC that the fuzz ignore burglaries, but spend loadsa time chasing social media posts they think might offend someone.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 29 Jan 18 at 02:02
|
"Policing is now so utterly PC that the fuzz ignore burglaries, but spend loadsa time chasing social media posts they think might offend someone."
"Ill-informed rubbish"
I'm afraid, RP, that Roger's statement is not so far from my recent experiences with the police.
|
>> I'm afraid, RP, that Roger's statement is not so far from my recent experiences with
>> the police.
Recognising that low key burglary is impossible to solve is one thing. Spending an hour or so determining that low key offence on social media doesn't justify following up is pretty much the same.
|
"Spending an hour or so determining that low key offence on social media doesn't justify following up is pretty much the same."
The social media scene barely existed before 10 years ago and, as such, the police did not have to waste their time on it.
My personal experience of police/social media was a couple of years ago when I spent an afternoon down at the local nick acting as an appropriate adult for my wife's friend's adopted FAS son; he had been sending messages to some inadequate young lady in a nearby town in which he threatened to do unspeakable things to her and her unborn baby.
Present for the afternoon were: me (as appropriate adult, unpaid volunteer); FAS lad (low intelligence, and not employed but somehow got the money for a smartphone); police DI; police specialist on 'computer' crime; solicitor representing accused (paid for by taxpayers). And so we spent an entire afternoon going through this nonsense which, as far as I know, resulted in precisely nothing. I daresay that more police time was wasted before and after that afternoon session - all in all, rather more than 'an hour or so'; and then, there's the financial cost.
Remember this is one stupid incident in one small town - but I daresay that it's going on in every small town in the country.
|
>> My personal experience of police/social media was a couple of years ago when I spent
>> an afternoon down at the local nick acting as an appropriate adult for my wife's
>> friend's adopted FAS son; he had been sending messages to some inadequate young lady in
>> a nearby town in which he threatened to do unspeakable things to her and her
>> unborn baby.
Surely issue there is threatening behaviour. The fact it was delivered by social media is incidental. My reference to 'an hour or so' related to investigation into a mildly offensive tweet not a crime with time inside as a possibility.
|
"Surely issue there is threatening behaviour. The fact it was delivered by social media is incidental."
A common characteristic of foetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) is an inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality, or right and wrong. Social media give such a person a quick and easy method of disseminating their fantasies. Whether they would actually carry out those threats is doubtful but, as you say, they have to be checked out - and it costs time and money.
You may have come across similarly afflicted people as clients at CAB - this one is constantly being baled out of debt by his adoptive mother.
|
>> You may have come across similarly afflicted people as clients at CAB - this one
>> is constantly being baled out of debt by his adoptive mother.
They tend not to need us until mother stops bailing them out........
|
I'm not getting into the whole PC thing, but I can say from experience that the police admit they no longer have the resources to investigate burglary, car crime, or criminal damage, especially where insurance is in place to cover the loss. I had a very frank conversation with a local officer last year when a number of cars (not ours, thankfully) were vandalised in our area. He was as exasperated as we were.
I was also talking to an ex police officer only last week (now running an IT department in a small Devon business) who left the force in 2015 because the job was becoming impossible. His force alone had lost almost 1,000 officers since 2012, and the pressure on remaining staff, and the frustration at being unable to do their job properly meant that officers were leaving "in droves".
The situation is unsustainable.
|
One of my lads was at a meeting the other week and the police commissioner was there making a speech.
Andrew had a few questions about crime which isn't going down.One positive came out the meeting is that our local police station is going to be manned again.The ex police building has been empty for more than ten years.
|
>> Recognising that low key burglary is impossible to solve is one thing. Spending an hour
>> or so determining that low key offence on social media doesn't justify following up is
>> pretty much the same.
I reckon you can spot unsolvable low-key burglary in seconds. Likewise low-key social media offences.
Meanwhile, a break-in where the site has CCTV evidence, plus all sorts of finger-printable items and items with DNA on them - beer bottles, fag ends, etc. elicited no response EVEN when I delivered the items to the police station (obviously not the CCTV, the police had to do that...)
|
Communist tit.
Always hatching another idea to spend what he hasn't got by borrowing what he can't afford.
|
>>Always hatching another idea to spend what he hasn't got by borrowing what he can't afford.
You mean like Carillion?
|
>> You mean like Carillion?
>>
No, that's a combination of incompetence and greed rather than political dogma, both equally inexcusable
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 30 Jan 18 at 10:15
|
The capitalist dogma can be just as destructive of society as misguided political dogma. Do we think Corbyn and his backers are at least sincere, rather than purely cynical and greedy?
Big quoted companies are, theoretically at least, accountable to their shareholders (mainly the likes of us, through our pension assets) but in reality the CEOs' and board members' interests are usually aligned with short term improvements in cash flow and the share price. This discourages proper capitalisation, encourages debt, and disincentivises investment for the long term.
They move on rapidly when the bubble bursts, the share price crashes and they are left with a pile of worthless options. The new CEO and CFO start with a new set of incentives, and the old ones start again somewhere else.
It's a one way bet for the management, where the risk is taken by all of us one way or another, and the rewards go to the few.
In the future, "capitalism" will eventually be seen as being worse than feudalism and the destroyer of the planet's ability to sustain us.
For the sake of the argument of course. But even Jezza isn't all wrong. And it's wrong to call him a Marxist. Marx thought things through.
|
>> The capitalist dogma can be just as destructive of society as misguided political dogma. Do
>> we think Corbyn and his backers are at least sincere, rather than purely cynical and
>> greedy?
>>
Misguided and extremist views of any kind do not compensate for sincerity. Capitalist crooks are every bit as culpable and every bit as undesirable as Jezza and his cronies.
"Capitalism" itself is the only way a free society can function or make genuine progress, without a strong economy society cannot look after the weak in a global world, but it does need to be balanced with a concern for the weak and a desire for social justice.
It will take a better quality of politician than we seem at have at the moment.
|
>>
>> It will take a better quality of politician than we seem at have at the
>> moment.
>>
That is unjust and unfounded. After all, Boris Johnston said in 2017 "The EC should be paying us to leave. We don't need to pay them".
And of course, events have proved he was absolutely correct.. er sorry an absolute.....
|
"Capitalism" itself is the only way a free society can function or make genuine progress,
provided of course that there is an inexhaustible supply of planets handy.
|
>> "Capitalism" itself is the only way a free society can function or make genuine progress,
>>
>> provided of course that there is an inexhaustible supply of planets handy.
>>
It needs controls, responsibility and concern for the weak, but I stand by the whole post, not just one phrase taken out of context
Last edited by: commerdriver on Tue 30 Jan 18 at 14:53
|
It seems to me dogmatic to say that capitalism, or anything else, is the only way to do anything, regardless of context, especially when it is so self-evidently unsustainable.
The consensus seems to be that it needs 2% growth to "work".
Unlike you I am not certain of anything!
|
It's true that capitalism is fundemental to progress, prosperity and wellbeing.
Capitalist policies are necessary to stimulate an economy so entrepreneurs are incentivised and employment is created, and tax revenues are optimised enabling a government to fund public services.
It seems that the current Labour leadership don't understand this.
|
>> It's true that capitalism is fundemental to progress, prosperity and wellbeing.
>>
>> Capitalist policies are necessary to stimulate an economy so entrepreneurs are incentivised and employment is
>> created, and tax revenues are optimised enabling a government to fund public services.
That's what the establishment needs you to believe.
|
>>
>> That's what the establishment needs you to believe.
>>
Establishment? JC is part of the establishment and he (mistakenly) doesn't believe.
Why don't you explain where the money comes from then Manatee?
|
JC is most certainly not part of the establishment which is why they and their running dogs (I've always wanted to use that phrase) are so frightened of his popularity.
It must be nearly 50 years since I first heard the phrase "the biggest crooks are in the City of London" and it's got a lot worse since then.
www.independent.co.uk/voices/when-a-mafia-expert-tells-us-britain-is-the-most-corrupt-country-in-the-world-its-time-to-start-a7057686.html
|
>> JC is most certainly not part of the establishment which is why they and their
>> running dogs (I've always wanted to use that phrase) are so frightened of his popularity.
>>
The real reason that many people do not like the idea of JC & cronies in power is that their beliefs and policies resulting from them, such as the take over 8000 houses to house the homeless one, have no basis in practicality or financial reality, and, in the end, everyone would end up suffering, the weakest in society most of all.
|
>> no basis in practicality or financial reality, and, in the end, everyone would end up suffering, the weakest in society most of all.
>>
Agreed CC.
|
>> The real reason that many people do not like the idea of JC & cronies
>> in power is that their beliefs and policies resulting from them, such as the take
>> over 8000 houses to house the homeless one, have no basis in practicality or financial
>> reality, and, in the end, everyone would end up suffering, the weakest in society most
>> of all.
Why is the purchase or construction of 8000 (or even 80,000) homes at affordable rent so far from practical or financial reality?
It's a fraction of what was achieved annually post war and continued until the eighties.
|
>> Why is the purchase or construction of 8000 (or even 80,000) homes at affordable rent
>> so far from practical or financial reality?
>>
It is not "far from practical or financial reality", it is not any sort of solution to 8000 homeless people, many of whom are in more need of other forms of support.
We need more affordable homes but the reality is that a sensible approach to financing that needs to be part of the approach, his sums have never come close to adding up.
Lets be clear, I would like to see a middle way in politics and government in this nation not an extreme right or left approach based on envy, hate, violence, arrogance or greed.
It is not going to come from JC and momentum, and it is not going to come from dear Theresa either.
|
>> Why is the purchase or construction of 8000 (or even 80,000) homes at affordable rent
>> so far from practical or financial reality?
Its not, its quite easy, however how successful is Jezza going to be in keeping the drunk he just rescued from Waterloo arches into the three bedroom house he just bought for him in Corby?
|
>>however how successful is Jezza going to be in keeping the drunk he just rescued from Waterloo arches into the three bedroom house he just bought for him in Corby?
Surely said drunk was an ex-Glaswegian escaping from Corby in the first place.
|
>> >>however how successful is Jezza going to be in keeping the drunk he just rescued
>> from Waterloo arches into the three bedroom house he just bought for him in Corby?
>>
>> Surely said drunk was an ex-Glaswegian escaping from Corby in the first place.
So you want jezza to buy him an apartment in the shell centre at 1.6 million because thats where he ended up? I'll be there in 38 minutes with my cardboard box if thats the case.
He is spouting soundbites. Just like any other politico, soundbites are valueless.
|
>>So you want jezza to buy him an apartment in the shell centre at 1.6 million.
Of course not.
I also don't want HMG to be paying ££££££ in housing benefit to landlords in London either stoking the silly house prices.
Anyways, 'tis a moot point - one the Euros give the City of London a pumping after Brexit there'll be plenty of houses going derelict.
|
>> Anyways, 'tis a moot point - one the Euros give the City of London a
>> pumping after Brexit there'll be plenty of houses going derelict.
Indeed, the left wing won't have to implement their favourite policy of dragging everyone down to the same level, its going there without their assistance.
|
>>That's what the establishment needs you to believe.
Only if you are happy that 1% of the world's population own over 50% of its wealth.
|
>> >>That's what the establishment needs you to believe.
>>
>> Only if you are happy that 1% of the world's population own over 50% of
>> its wealth.
>>
That is the way almost every method works.
In Communist Russia, the only wealth was held by the rulers.
In Venezuela , in theory the people own the oil and receive the benefits from it. Like declining production and poverty.
The only truly egalitarian society is North Korea where 99% of the people are all poor.
And no I am not justifying vast inequality as it eventually leads to revolutions, promises of equality and dictatorships.. See Russia again. And Zimbabwe. And Cuba etc..
|
>> Only if you are happy that 1% of the world's population own over 50% of
>> its wealth.
>>
On the basis that one person from the 1% employs at least 50 from the 50% what's wrong with that? The 1% person has had the ideas, the drive, the creativity, taken risks to build a business that employs 50 people and contributes massivley in tax revenues, in which regard t's not only the entrepreneur's income tax and the business's corporation tax, it is also all of the employee's income tax that is generated by the business.
|
>> On the basis that one person from the 1% employs at least 50 from the
>> 50% what's wrong with that? The 1% person has had the ideas, the drive, the
>> creativity, taken risks to build a business that employs 50 people and contributes massivley in
>> tax revenues, in which regard t's not only the entrepreneur's income tax and the business's
>> corporation tax, it is also all of the employee's income tax that is generated by
>> the business.
And the right accuse Corbyn of lack of grip on reality
As Pat would say, words fail me........
|
>>
>> And the right accuse Corbyn of lack of grip on reality
>>
>> As Pat would say, words fail me........
>>
So what do you actually disagree with Bromp or is it you who has no grip on reality? I suspect so.
|
>>The 1% person has had the ideas, the drive, the creativity, taken risks to build a business that employs 50 people and contributes massively in tax revenues
Hahaha.
Riiiiiight.
The so-called 'trickle down' effect.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics
See also: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers
Next you'll explain how banks and financial services generate wealth.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Tue 30 Jan 18 at 16:18
|
>> >>The 1% person has had the ideas, the drive, the creativity, taken risks to build
>> a business that employs 50 people and contributes massively in tax revenues
You must be a bright bloke to be a doc though you didn't study economics did you.
>> The so-called 'trickle down' effect.
No it's simple economics.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 31 Jan 18 at 02:18
|
>>You must be a bright bloke
This is true.
>>it's simple economics
That explains why so many checks and balances are required to prevent massive wealth accumulation at the top (which happens anyway as the superwealthy can avoid these checks)?
No such thing as simple economics, but then being an economist you won't understand that.
|
OK, where does the money come from?
It comes from the people that take a pound, buy a commodity with it and buy labour with it and turn it into £1.50, adding value by satisfying other's needs, the baker buys flour and sells bread, he does a good job, demand increases and he employs another baker on a fair wage, both pay their taxes and from their taxes the gov support those who are unable to work, etc.
It's is an organic, dynamic structure, it cannot be manufactured, rather the conditions need to be created that encourage creativity, and inspire people to strive, to build businesses and employ others, if that is achieved people will prosper and tax revenues will flow enabling a social safety net.
Conditions have to be created and seeds sown, attempts to manufacture an economy and/or society have all failed.
No apologies for copying and pasting an earlier post of mine.
|
Perhaps crucial to our own apparent wealth is that we buy goods and services from underdeveloped nations (some may suggest exploitatively) at rock bottom prices enabling:
1. No real prospect of the producers advancing themselves out of their poverty as they'll never make a decent profit.
2. Significant mark-ups on the raw materials by each middle man to the final consumer.
3. a perpetuation of this due to 1. above.
Would explain why the bottom 80% of the planet are worth less than my toe jam.
|
>> Would explain why the bottom 80% of the planet are worth less than my toe
>> jam.
It used to be 90%, but the number is going down because they are developing on the back of goods and services to the developed nations
However, just like our business, finance and government is corrupt, theirs are worsererer
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 30 Jan 18 at 16:54
|
I read a great explanation of trickle down economics a few years ago. I'm paraphrasing, but it essentially defined it as a theory where the poor, who get by on the scraps dropped from the tables of the rich, can be best served by giving the rich bigger meals. Thought it summed it up nicely.
Capitalism is the least flawed of a very bad bunch in that it works for a bigger minority than the alternatives (in reality), but let's not kid ourselves that it is anything other than a minority who benefit disproportionately. Choosing the best economic system is like choosing the best STD.
|
|
Ah yes, the good old 'horse and sparrow' theory. The logic being if you keep the horse well fed, then the sparrows will have something as well. A theory more supported by the rich than the poor, I suspect.
|
It is clearly unjust that 1% of the population owns 50% of the wealth, although these figures oversimplify an awful lot, but there will always be people who save and work and generate wealth, produce things and provide employment for others. Similarly there will always be those who will spend what they do not have and those who are not willing to work. Both are extremes.
To imagine that it can be changed by any one nation is naive, especially in any sort of short timeframe.
|
Maybe we should be honest and admit that we are all capitalists ........... it's just that some are better at it than others.
|
>>Maybe we should be honest and admit that we are all capitalists
True.
Accumulating wealth for its own sake is not a productive strategy for the economy though.
100% inheritance tax would help HC's vision of Keynesian economics - it would also mean some amazing funeral parties and geriatrics in Lamborghinis.
|
>> 100% inheritance tax would help HC's vision of Keynesian economics - it would also mean
>> some amazing funeral parties and geriatrics in Lamborghinis.
Dont knock it till you have tried it. I am doing my best.
|
>>Dont knock it till you have tried it. I am doing my best
Got a few more years til retirement then we can have a race...
|
>> >>Dont knock it till you have tried it. I am doing my best
>>
>> Got a few more years til retirement then we can have a race...
It will have to be a short one unless you have discovered a very very long mains cable.
|
Will just buy a new EV every 100 mile.
Gotta stimulate the economy, you know.
|
|
You could house the homeless in the dead ones...
|
>>You could house the homeless in the dead ones...
Saved Luke Skywalker's life, so it did.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXmp1hLK0tY
|
"geriatrics in Lamborghinis."
And then all the money would be in the hands of Lamborghini dealers :-(
|
>> On the basis that one person from the 1% employs at least 50 from the
>> 50% what's wrong with that? The 1% person has had the ideas, the drive, the
>> creativity, taken risks to build a business that employs 50 people and contributes massivley in
>> tax revenues, in which regard t's not only the entrepreneur's income tax and the business's
>> corporation tax, it is also all of the employee's income tax that is generated by
>> the business.
>>
Agreed. And that's the trouble with socialism. Corbyn et al want a cut of the wealth but the majority of them haven't contributed to earning it having instead relied on others to create it first.
Unless of course you count the champagne socialists who enjoy telling everyone else how to live whilst sitting on a family fortune in their £2 million London mansions.
|
Inherited and hoarded wealth really f up the mechanics of capitalism.
This applies to righties and lefties.
|
>> Inherited and hoarded wealth really f up the mechanics of capitalism.
>>
No because it applies to such a small % of people.
|
>> No because it applies to such a small % of people.
It's not the % of people that matters it's the % of wealth and what they do with it.
Have you driven down The Bishop's Avenue recently? A large percentage of those £5m-£10m properties are empty and crumbling, they are just "bank deposits" for the wealthy. What good is that wealth doing?
Once accumulated, some of this wealth - generated in truth by society as a whole, not the parasites who siphon it off for themselves - trickles down to the hoi polloi only by way of the enormous loans they need to buy a house (or the equivalent in rent) or an 'aspirational' car if they are daft enough to borrow for that too.
Even a hospital consultant can't hope to live in much more than a 2 bedroomed apartment in most of London. But of course they aren't wealth creators so they don't deserve any better.
|
>> Have you driven down The Bishop's Avenue recently? A large percentage of those £5m-£10m properties
>> are empty and crumbling, they are just "bank deposits" for the wealthy. What good is
>> that wealth doing?
Here you go:-
www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9FWGYGr3wc
|
>> Here you go:-
>>
>> www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9FWGYGr3wc
Seems my estimate of values was underdone! I don't suppose they are worth much if any less when allowed to decay. Anybody spending tens of millions for one of those in the video would probably rebuild anyway, the cost would be a fraction of the cost of the plot and location.
|
">No because it applies to such a small % of people."
With well over 60% of houses in private ownership in the UK I would suggest that a substantial portion of the UK population are likely to inherit a substantial sum
You can make an economic argument that all this wealth should be returned to the state for the benefit of all rather than a privileged element.
|
>> You can make an economic argument that all this wealth should be returned to the
>> state for the benefit of all rather than a privileged element.
>>
Only if you assume, for the sake of the argument, that people who own houses would generously invest money buying a house just so that the state can take it as soon as they die.
As with many purely economic arguments it breaks down entirely if you factor in reality.
|
>> Only if you assume, for the sake of the argument, that people who own houses
>> would generously invest money buying a house just so that the state can take it
>> as soon as they die.
>> As with many purely economic arguments it breaks down entirely if you factor in reality.
Absolutely. It would be a one off exercise.
|
>> Only if you assume, for the sake of the argument, that people who own houses
>> would generously invest money buying a house just so that the state can take it
>> as soon as they die.
>> As with many purely economic arguments it breaks down entirely if you factor in reality.
>>
Agree totally, well put.
|
>>Only if you assume, for the sake of the argument, that people who own houses would generously invest money buying a house just so that the state can take it as soon as they die
Hmm sounds a bit like how the Duke of Westminster maintains his mahoosive fortune leasing out houses for 100 years at a time...
|
>> Hmm sounds a bit like how the Duke of Westminster maintains his mahoosive fortune leasing
>> out houses for 100 years at a time...
>>
Except the post I replied too in these words was about the 60% of the population who own houses not one individual. I was talking about the 60%
The idea of 100% inheritance tax, which was what you started talking about is an economic nonsense and a political impossibility, the lawyers would have a field day worldwide and the end result would be more poverty, more pain for the weakest members of society.
|
>> You can make an economic argument that all this wealth should be returned to the
>> state for the benefit of all rather than a privileged element.
Worth debating.
Most of those are owner occupied houses presumably. At one end of the scale you have "property is theft", at the other "property rights extend to whatever you can accumulate".
Perhaps there is an in between. It can't be good if 40% of people rent their homes from part of the 60%; I think the squeezing of BTL was long overdue, and underdone.
Ironically it is our fairly solid property rights that make the UK attractive to wealthy Chinese, Russians etc as a place to keep (or hide) their money. The unfortunate side effect of that and slack lending is unaffordable houses.
But I don't really trust the state to use money wisely. There is no sign of PPPs declining, and vast amounts are being wasted, given to friends of those in government. As the article I linked to the other day postulated, the UK way of doing things looks very corrupt. Is there another explanation when government can borrow so cheaply and yet chooses to pay for expensive private capital and still have the risk (as demonstrated after the Carillion and other failures). I doubt if those responsible see it as corruption, and of course they are fireproof when clad in the expensive consultants' reports endorsing their decisions (for which said consultants, members of the club, are very well rewarded).
|
>>
>> >> You can make an economic argument that all this wealth should be returned to
>> the state for the benefit of all rather than a privileged element.
>>
>> Worth debating.
>>
No it's not, it's ridiculous. No one would leave anything, they would gamble it away, invest it off shore, give it away as cash, give it to charity etc etc etc.
|
>>No one would leave anything, they would gamble it away, invest it off shore, give it away as cash, give it to charity etc etc etc. do something economically active with it rather than have the government get it all.
And that's why it would work in a Keynesian world.
|
>> >> Worth debating.
>> >>
>>
>> No it's not, it's ridiculous. No one would leave anything, they would gamble it away,
>> invest it off shore, give it away as cash, give it to charity etc etc
>> etc.
Worth debating because you might tease out something that can be considered. Taking someone's 3 bed semi that is 90% of their wealth when they die would be silly, but taking his portfolio of BTLs would result in the return of a lot of property to the open market. Give right-to-buy to tenants of corporate landlords and you might start to make a dent in the current problem. Bit of detail to work out:)
|
>> Taking someone's 3 bed semi that is 90% of their wealth when they die would be silly, but
>> taking his portfolio of BTLs would result in the return of a lot of property
>> to the open market. >>
How can you take the fruits of someone's labours, it's not yours/ours to take, it belongs to him/her and is to be passed onto who ever he/she wishes on death, child, sibling, dogs home etc.
Aside from which imagine how this would disincentive entrepreneurs and the impact of that.
As I said before an economy is organic, it needs seeds to be sewn and cultivated, this would be like weed killer, as are most socialist economic policies of course.
|
>> How can you take the fruits of someone's labours, it's not yours/ours to take, it
>> belongs to him/her and is to be passed onto who ever he/she wishes on death,
>> child, sibling, dogs home etc.
Happens all the time, income tax, inheritance tax, to name the obvious ones.
Real property is also a special case IMO. There is a limited supply, and arguably it should be put to good use (the basis of 'squatter's rights'). I'm pretty sure that the UK has had a marginal rate of 85% in my lifetime.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 31 Jan 18 at 20:17
|
>> Happens all the time, income tax, inheritance tax, to name the obvious ones.
>>
There's a big difference between tax and assets, it's like paying income tax or working for nothing. Reckon even Jezza and Ronald McDonnell get that.
|
Should have been clearer, marginal IHT rate of 85%.
I think you are in for a shock HC. Things will change, sooner or later, when governments simply can't balance the books and the realisation comes that we are all in this together. A situation in which nobody wants to pay any tax is not sustainable.
They might not take your house in kind, but real property is one thing that can't be hidden and I expect property/estate taxes will have to increase, a lot.
|
>>taxes will have to increase, a lot.
>>
Higher tax rates does not mean higher tax take.
There is an optimum rate of tax, it varies from tax to tax ...
... and it's not 100% for any of them.
|
>> Higher tax rates does not mean higher tax take.
>>
>> There is an optimum rate of tax, it varies from tax to tax ...
>> ... and it's not 100% for any of them.
You're having a Laffer. I think we all know that. But when the optimum rates still leave the public purse with a hole in, wealth and property taxes have to be favourites for plugging the gap.
|
>>
>> No it's not, it's ridiculous. No one would leave anything, they would gamble it away,
>> invest it off shore, give it away as cash, give it to charity etc etc
>> etc.
And by doing so would stimulate the economy.
|
|
Not sure the Cayman island economy needs any more stimulation.
|
>> You can make an economic argument that all this wealth should be returned to the
>> state for the benefit of all rather than a privileged element.
>>
No you can't, that's a completely ridiculous statement.
|
>> ">No because it applies to such a small % of people."
>>
>> With well over 60% of houses in private ownership in the UK I would suggest
>> that a substantial portion of the UK population are likely to inherit a substantial sum
>>
To comment on the sensible part of your post - the average inheritance is a boost to the economy as most people spend it and the 0.0001% of people who inherit a shire are insignificant in the broader scheme of things.
|
>>To comment on the sensible part of your post - the average inheritance is a boost to the economy as most people spend it
And if inheritance was disallowed everyone would spend it or hand it on while they were alive.
It is, of course, a political non-starter.
|
>> And if inheritance was disallowed everyone would spend it or hand it on while they
>> were alive.
Mostly its a house, so they cant spend it, and are usually living in it when they die.
So not only is it a political non starter, its a practical non starter as well. At least jezza will pump so much borrowed money into the NHS and care, that I wont be forced to sell the house to pay for my care in the vegetative state
|
A house can be sold and property rented instead etc. Though that doesn't make the idea any more sensible.
>> only is it a political non starter, its a practical non starter as
>> well. At least jezza will pump so much borrowed money into the NHS and care,
>> that I wont be forced to sell the house to pay for my care in
>> the vegetative state
>>
Where's Jezza gonna get the money from?
Last edited by: Hard Cheese on Wed 31 Jan 18 at 16:50
|
>> Where's Jezza gonna get the money from?
Borrow it. He makes no bones about racking up the national debt.
|
>>
>> >> Where's Jezza gonna get the money from?
>>
>> Borrow it. He makes no bones about racking up the national debt.
>>
And so we go back to 2010 quicker than Marty McFly's DeLorean ...
|
>>Where's Jezza gonna get the money from?
Borrow it.
Print it (see also quantitative easing)
Steal it from 'hardworking taxpayers' like me.
Where did the recent govts get the money to be overdrawn by £2 trillion?
Why they've used all 3 methods.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Wed 31 Jan 18 at 17:20
|
What for me really undermines all this admiration of those who have managed to accumulate great wealth is that they are unquestioningly credited with its creation.
Firms like Carillion (for example) are run by highly rewarded individuals who are not risking their own money and will still be rich even if the firm goes bust. And what of the tens of thousands of employees struggling at or near the minimum wage? Have they played no part at all? Nver mind the impact of industrial businesses on reserves of natural resources that our grandchildren's children will also depend on.
My daughter works for a relatively small business (c. 100 employees) that was founded and owned by a couple of genuine entrepreneurs. The founders wanted to retire and sell out. They could almost certainly have got more money more quickly by selling to a multinational (they operate in a high growth technology market). The company has been transferred to a trust for the benefit of employees, and the founders will be paid out over a period from profits. Thereafter all profits not reinvested will be available for distribution to employees, similar to John Lewis. I like that.
|
It's all very well stating the state could do better.
Anyone who suggests that should just look at:
what the state did with the UK's nuclear power industry.
what the state did with British Leyland,
what the state did with Rotherham Child Services. And Poppi Worthington's death.
what the state did with PPI.
And so on... And remind me how many civil servants,state employees and politicians were sacked because of any of those ?
|
>>And so on...
Banks.
Bail outs.
Quantitative easing.
|
>> >>And so on...
>>
>>
>> Banks.
>> Bail outs.
>> Quantitative easing.
Shares sold back to private sector, money recovered.
Except that Jock basket case of course that was guided by Alex Salmon.
|
>>Except that Jock basket case of course that was guided by Alex Salmon(d)
Not much chance of break-even on that one.
Pretty sure that t*** from Paisley, Goodwin, was calling the shots.
>> Quantitative easing
Nearly £500,000,000,000 from the magic money tree that apparently doesn't exist.
|
>> >>Except that Jock basket case of course that was guided by Alex Salmon(d)
>>
>> Not much chance of break-even on that one.
>>
>> Pretty sure that t*** from Paisley, Goodwin, was calling the shots.
Fred "the shred" Goodwin? He was wound up and set off like a clockwork bunny by Salmon who was hankering after a home based major influential international bank to add credence to an independent Scotland
|
>> It's all very well stating the state could do better.
>> Anyone who suggests that should just look at:
>> what the state did with the UK's nuclear power industry.
>> what the state did with British Leyland,
>> what the state did with Rotherham Child Services. And Poppi Worthington's death.
>> what the state did with PPI.
British Leyland was nationalised after being FUBAR by the private sector. Rootes and Ford were little better for Labour relations but managed engineering and model overlap a little better.
And the idea that private sector child services or police would have prevented Rotherham or Worthington is absurd. Just look at the mess in our privately run care homes at the moment.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 31 Jan 18 at 15:54
|
>> And the idea that private sector child services or police would have prevented Rotherham or
>> Worthington is absurd. Just look at the mess in our privately run care homes at
>> the moment.
>>
NOWHERE do I suggest, imply or otherwise suggest that the state should privatise anything.
What I am saying is that those who suggest the state can run businesses better or spend money more wisely than individuals, carefully ignore the obvious facts that the state cannot even manage successfully the things it has run itself .
Going all defensive on issues and trying to shift attention to other issues is rather typical. IF the state cannot run properly the things it currently does run (and in my opinion SHOULD run), then anyone who suggests the state should extend its powers to run other things is naive at best and deluded at worst.
If the state ran social services well and checked up properly, Rotherham should never have happened. Period. The fact it did should have meant full scale sackings. The fact that a number of MPs endorsed doing nothing about the scandal when they learned of it says how suited MPs are to run anything.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 31 Jan 18 at 20:18
|
>>If the state ran social services well and checked up properly
Maybe if the politicians could convince us to fund it adequately.
Maybe you think Capita could do a better job?
|
>> Maybe you think Capita could do a better job?
>>
In the case of Rotherham and similar places the state agencies had all the information they needed to bring it to a stop in the early stages. They chose to ignore it because they were scared of being labelled racist.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 31 Jan 18 at 20:18
|
The bottom line, whether publicly owned or outsourced is whether there is enough money to deliver what is required but we have been getting further into debt year on year for some time and until that stops, the debt we leave our children and grandchildren will get bigger.
Borrowing even more is definitely not the answer either.
We need a targeted, reasonable gradual increase in tax to provide more for vital services and
Huge tax rises will just end up reducing the revenue raised from tax
Spending the money on taking anything back into public ownership would not do anything for the services we need to spend more on. The need in the short term is gradually getting back to proper funding of things like social care, education and the health service
it will not be easy and there are no instant answers and extreme views and policies of either variety do not help at all.
I just find all the yah boo politics frustrating
|
We are living longer so the state pension age needs to rise - something that has already started and should have done at least a decade ago. 70 is a realistic starting point now, though I'm not complaining about drawing mine at the back end of last year. Who would be?
More and more people are living to the point where they are little more than vegetables, the brain still functioning to one degree or another but the body incapable of even getting out of bed without assistance. So we've got to start looking after our elderly relatives again as we did in the past, or recognise that we need to collectively pay a lot more to have them (And ultimately ourselves) looked after by the state. That or introduce compulsory euthanasia once someone gets past a certain point of independence. That would be quite contentious of course, which makes it a non starter.
Either way it needs a fundamental shift in how we manage both public and personal finances, and perhaps a change of attitude in our personal wealth expectations.
|
Good Old Jezza - Dutchie
