Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Tired of Waiting

Members
  • Posts

    12,917
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Tired of Waiting

  1. I was thinking the same thing - not property but just getting into some dollar assets. Heck, I might go and buy some silver if it drops this week and the Pound rises :o

    + 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? :unsure: )

    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. It won't happen, although it should.

    LibDems have already committed electoral suicide, putting forward a policy that the banksters would hate will bury them so deep they'll never come back.

    The media would unite against LVT in a fury of VI journalism under the orders of their owners.

    Of course they would, the biggest landowners are the ones who own the papers/TV stations/websites, or their friends do. They would mount a ruthless campaign against it, it won't get off the ground.

    There is no way you can get anything done in the UK that is against the interests of (in no particular order) :

    1. The Royals.

    2. The CofE.

    3. The Oxbridge colleges(huge landowners).

    4. The banks and banksters.

    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. Set it at a level that means you can also scrap welfare and bring in a citizens income.For most people the affect would be revenue neutral.It would however make a huge difference to GDP growth.

    The other option is to use it to get rid of VAT.That also would provide a huge boost to employment and GDP.

    The only real losers from a LVT are the owners of lots of land.Vince mentioned farmers.They would have to pay,but at a much reduced cost than other land.

    LVT is one of the best answers to the long term health of the UK economy.

    Would Labour go for it?.A lot of them no.Miliband?,,I think he would.

    It would also give the Libs a walk away from the Tories excuse if they were the biggest party.

    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. To a nation of homeowners the yearly bill is tangible while the economic benefits to the nation of a land tax are not. You need some degree of economic understanding to see why a land tax is good, and given that we are only just starting to see people question whether high house prices are a good thing, I'm not that hopeful.

    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. Tories will never support it as their mouthpieces above report, Labour might. Let's hope so.

    I think the problem is Europe. Would taxes like VAT need to be broadly similar across the EU member states?

    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.

    .

  6. 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.

    .

  7. 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:

    " Vince Cable backs land tax for home owners

    Homeowners could be hit with an annual tax on the value of the land on which their houses are built, under radical plans being promoted by the Liberal Democrats."

    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:

    Mr Cable’s move to back a land tax is likely to prove the most controversial. Supporters of a land tax, who outlined their case at a fringe event at the conference, say that an annual tax on the rental value of land would be fairer than levying charges on the sale of homes or on the purchase of goods through VAT.

    Land, they argue, “is a basic community asset” and individuals should be taxed when they claim “exclusive use” of particular plots.

    The most important factor in the value of land is likely to be its location, with proximity to a city centre and local amenities all expected to increase the taxable value of a site.

    Mr Cable admitted that farmers and others with larger plots of land in the countryside could face some of the highest bills under the scheme. Exemptions may need to be available to for agriculture, he told a fringe meeting.

    He argued that existing charges such as council tax and stamp duty may not be “sustainable” politically because they are inefficient and unpopular with voters. Politicians are so “terrified” of council tax that they have frozen it and refuse to contemplate a revaluation of property values, Mr Cable said, so the option of a land value tax should be fully explored.

    “The next step is for government to have a look at the practicalities,” he said.

    “I don’t think detailed work has been done on it but it is one of the options that is floating around at quite a high level.”

    The minister predicted that the need to reform business rates would be an ideal opportunity for supporters of a land value tax to promote their case to the government.

    “This whole issue is very much coming to the fore,” Mr Cable said. There is a “growing sense” that existing tax revenues are not “nailed down” because of problems with tax avoidance and revenue from a land value tax may be more reliable, he suggested.

    At the same time, Mr Cable said he was concerned about the “inequities” in the current tax regime, “particularly the accumulation of wealth in property and land”.

    The reform, backers claim, could deliver a boost to the construction industry by removing the incentive for property firms to “bank” large swathes of land while the value rises instead of building on it.

    But critics said the scheme was costly to set up and a tax which would not reflect the income of the people with the property. As well as farmers, older people on low income in high-value homes would be badly hit, a criticism which has also been levelled at Mr Cable’s “mansion tax” project, which has the backing of the Lib Dems.

  8. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24061897

    Most of the content of the article has all been said before but I must say I'm gob smacked by the comments.

    I feel in the last six months there has been such a huge swing in public opinions on the subject of house prices and it certainly shows up well in the highest rated comments.

    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.

    _________________________________________________________________________

    .

  9. Actually I spoke too soon. However if you have a look at her full statement you'll see she references the planning laws and housing bubble

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/sep/11/full-statement-special-rapporteur-raquel-rolnik

    She is certainly to the left of many of this forum, but she is also in sympathy with many of the core points. I don't understand the hostility from so many on here.

    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.

    In England the Government and most stakeholders report that there is a clear shortage of housing due to a mismatch between supply and demand. For example, estimations range around 221,000 new homes needed in England per year, with less than 50% of this need actually being met (approximately 110,000). In view of the Government, this shortage is due to two main factors: the lack of available financing for the housing sector and planning constraints which lead to lack of available land for housing development.

    In order to respond to this critical situation, the current Government has launched several initiatives contained in its 2012 Housing Strategy in England, and has created various schemes for investment such as "Help to buy equity loan" and the "Build to Rent"

    to support private house buyers and developers. A smaller funding allocation is provided for grants for affordable housing under this same package of initiatives. In devolved Governments, various schemes have also been created. For example, in Wales, the "Houses to Homes" initiative aims at bringing long term empty homes back into use.

    A second element of this strategy is a significant reform to the planning system which, among other aspects, aims at reducing long and cumbersome administrative processes, by eliminating the regional level planning and pre-defined benchmarks for local councils

    to provide housing. In turn, this means that local authorities have more responsibilities as well as more direct and autonomous decision-making power. In Scotland, regional level planning has been retained in the four largest cities. A third aspect of the strategy involves the unlocking and selling of public land for housing development, through auctions in the private market without any conditionality.

    (...)

    Summary of recommendation

    As a brief summary of my preliminary remarks, I would like to highlight three recommendations:

    First, and foremost, I would suggest that the so-called bedroom tax be suspended immediately and be fully re-evaluated in light of the evidence of its impacts on the right to adequate housing and general well-being of many vulnerable individuals.

    Secondly, I would recommend that the Government puts in place a system of regulation for the private rent sector, including clear criteria about affordability, access to information and security of tenure.

    Thirdly, I would encourage a renewal of the Government's commitment to significantly increasing the social housing stock and a more balanced public funding for the stimulation of supply of social and affordable housing which responds to the needs.

  10. It is not to late to give your own account of how this obscene policy is affecting people. Send your letters or emails to the following address UN High Commissioner for Refugees Strand Bridge House, 138-142 Strand, 1st Floor London, WC2R 1HH

    Ms Rolnik will present her final report in March 2014. Evidence can still be submitted to [email protected] until 26 October 2013.

    Thanks SEY.

    I think we should tell her about self-building prohibition, forced scarcity, and the consequent rentiers exploitation.

    Email to: [email protected]

  11. (...) My biggest expense however is to UK rentiers.

    (...)

    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:

  12. I'm interested in the chance that he might have apologised for the housing bubble under Labour, but I got 0.2 seconds into that video - I just can't watch that c***.

    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?)

  13. Actually I think 50/50 is quite a good result. You can be sure that 10 years ago the NIMBYs would have had a large majority.

    Okay, an online newspaper poll is very unscientific, but it does suggest that the NIMBYs are waning. They're dying off, they're history, their time is passing and a new generation is rising.

    Political parties take note.

    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.

  14. No. Second question?

    If No, should all existing housing on the green belt therefore be removed to "protect rural England"? It is a logical progression.

    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.