Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Tired of Waiting

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tired of Waiting

  1. + 1 I'm also having an itch to move more of my savings from sterling to dollar. (Or perhaps even buy my first gold? Just a little? ) I have a dollar savings account, but my bank charges too much to transfer from my GBP savings account to my USD savings account, almost 2%! That's ridiculous. I need to find a better way - cheaper, but also safe though.
  2. Sadly, I share your scepticism. Even in this forum the Lib-Dems are not well perceived - despite having by far the best housing policies.
  3. Wow, just imagine if we had both LTV and Citizens Income... It would be brilliant! These 2 things combined would rationalize our economy much more, removing lots of perverse incentives, and reducing a major resource/capital (land) misallocation. Not sure we could afford to scrap VAT though. Besides, VAT has the benefit of reducing internal demand, when we do need to consume less and export more. It shouldn't be charged on basic needs though. And it isn't on unprocessed food. .
  4. I agree, it's a very difficult sell. The best way to implement it would be replacing Council Tax, and in a way that most home owners would pay less. I guess it would be easy to set it in a way that at least two thirds of home owners would pay less tax. But even then I think some (most?) voters could doubt these promises, and be afraid of ending up with both taxes. Politicians would have to somehow inform each individual home owner how much they would pay after the change. And even then the losers would make much more noise than the winners, and campaign much more forcefully. .
  5. "Sterling hits 8-month high versus weaker dollar on Fed news" http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/09/16/markets-sterling-idUKL5N0HC11N20130916 Various sources (limited to news, today) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=sterling+dollar&ie=UTF-8#q=sterling+dollar&tbm=nws&tbs=qdr:d
  6. Oh yes, the Tories would NEVER go for a LTV! I think even Labour would be afraid of most voters' irrational panicky reaction against it. Pity, as I am sure the policy could be revenue neutral and progressive, therefore benefiting the majority of taxpayers. It could even replace Council Tax and Stamp Duty. .
  7. Very little info about it, but we already have a strong reaction against it: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/429786/Anger-at-Liberal-Democrats-for-land-tax-on-middle-class Strangely, in the last couple of hours only a German website was added to the Google search (limited to news, last 24h) http://www.ad-hoc-news.de/homeowners-could-be-hit-with-an-annual-tax-on-the-value-of--/de/News/31878532 So it's sponsored by Vince Cable. And I heard Nick Clegg mentioning "land tax" this morning. If both are supporting it, then it should have a good chance of becoming Lib-Dem policy and be included in their manifesto. Next question is if a Lab-Lib coalition would implement it. .
  8. The Lib-Dems are developing a land value tax. Would a Lab-Lib coalition adopt it? http://www.politicshome.com/uk/story/19813/ Telegraph's headline hysterical spin: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/10309809/Vince-Cable-backs-land-tax-for-home-owners.html Others: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=lib-dems+land+tax&ie=UTF-8 Though inside the Telegraph's article there are a few interesting quotes from Cable:
  9. By allowing people to build homes, even if most will be middle to high income, as these people will move out of their current houses, increasing the supply in general, and reducing the prices and rents of entry level houses.
  10. Excellent comments, and brilliant readers' ratings! I was very gladly surprised by the top rated, pasted below, and it is also an "Editors' Pick"! I think this is the most important economic argument against high house prices. (See my forum signature, below. ) I'm VERY glad this argument is becoming more widely known, and gathering broader / popular support. _________________________________________________________________________ 6. Casaloco Comment number 6 is an Editors' Pick 13th September 2013 - 12:54 Houses are unaffordable. We need prices to fall until they become affordable, instead of coming up with increasingly inventive ways to allow people to borrow more money. High house prices mean people demand higher wages, which pushes up costs in general, and causes manufacturers to more jobs to countries where housing is cheaper. High house prices have destroyed Great Britain's economy. _________________________________________________________________________ .
  11. Rob Peter to pay Paul. Until we allow more houses to be built we'll keep evicting Peters to house Pauls.
  12. Thanks. Good, she heard about the planning issue (paragraphs below). Though it doesn't appear in her final recommendations, unfortunately. I suspect she doesn't get the degree of our planning blockage, a de facto building prohibition, essential for our rentier system to exploit huge amount of cash from the younger generations. And I agree that, on balance, her contribution has been positive. But her emphasis on the "bedroom tax" indicates that she has no idea that these spare rooms are being paid for by taxpaying private tenants living in crowded and cramped conditions themselves. And her recommendations for more council housing stock and rental controls shows clearly her obsolete statist ideology. Yet, as I said before elsewhere, even council estates are better than nothing, as beggars can't be choosers, every little helps, etc.
  13. Yes http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/11/un-housing-bedroom-tax-absolute-disgrace Couldn't find it.
  14. Thanks SEY. I think we should tell her about self-building prohibition, forced scarcity, and the consequent rentiers exploitation. Email to: [email protected]
  15. Weird indeed. If there is a human right violation is people not being allowed to build their own homes. Has she commented on this fact? Does she even know about it? .
  16. Very well put ST. And the inflated amount these rentiers manage to extract is only possible due to the scarcity they manage to create via planning restrictions. Without this scarcity their bargaining power would reduce dramatically. These [email protected] are leeching the productive sectors of this country to death - or saddling it so much that it can only grow 1%/year. See my sig, below:
  17. I just Googled about it, and apparently they have to invest at least £1million. So, not many will be able to "spare a £million".
  18. "VOTERS don't want massive house building". The sad true! (Was it Henry Prior who said that?)
  19. Evil start: "5 million extra houses needed in the next 20 years, according to experts". "5 million"?!?! I've never heard of it, and it will obviously scaremonger both "greens" and xenophobes. Evil [email protected]!
  20. I do share your pain. If it helps: Direct link to house prices issue, at 2min 15 sec into video (HP issue ends at 4min 15 sec) : His 1st reply was to say that "for 30 years" (hence including Thatcher and Major) the country didn't built enough homes. He wants the government to spend £10bn to build 400k affordable homes. (Fine, every little helps, but wouldn't it be simpler, and zero cost, just to liberalise planning?)
  21. Yeah, I think you are right BG. It had crossed my mind too. I guess I was not being realist hoping for a clear victory.
  22. Yep. Quite logical. Well, unless CPRE members believe they are "special", or "they worked hard for it" ... I don't know. Or perhaps they are just bonkers, or stupid, or selfish, or evil. Or any combination of the above - including all of the above. .
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.