Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Wayo

Members
  • Posts

    592
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Wayo

  1. On 04/08/2019 at 09:26, SoldTooSoon said:

    Anybody see George Clarke’s documentary on Channel 4?

    I particularly agreed with the point he made about once people have secure affordable housing, it provides a solid base to build non-chaotic, manageable, meaningful lives.

     

    The Vienna segment was a bit utopian. The building looks very old, much easier to find £350pcm rentals in a European capital city of it was put up in the 1930s and fully depreciated.

     

    Of course we tried this in the 1960s and it didn't go terribly well.

     

    Only last week we had the guy fined £100k for putting his council flat on Air BnB. It is really a fools errand trying to buck the market. If you are trying, you are already doing something wrong and need to figure out where.

  2. 8 hours ago, zugzwang said:

    Shocking for what it reveals about the national income distribution.

    But what about N.I.? Is that not also an income tax?

    Shocking indeed.

    Full time minimum wage is well above the income tax threshold.

    There must be a hell of a lot of low income pensioners, low paid part timers, people living off eBay, off the books sports massages, selling herbal remedies on street corners etc..

  3. When Crossrail gets finished it will be well under the hour to the City and Canary Wharf.

    Huge office blocks going up all over. Sadly let down by terrible red brick housing stock around the centre much of it ex rental and 2+1 bedrooms with downstairs bathrooms.

  4. On 09/06/2019 at 21:13, Bear Goggles said:

    Okay so the Tory leadership race is, erm, hotting up and with the help of ex-Adam Smith Institute director Sam Bowman, leadership hopeful Sam Gyimah has come up with a revolutionary neo-neo-liberal housing policy to own the plucky young Corbynite whippersnappers and make the Tories great again. Ajyhulia!

    Heres CAPX with the lowdown: 

     https://capx.co/how-the-tories-can-win-on-housing-again/

    And here’s the main points if you’ve already lost the will to click:

    1. Let local residents vote to build mansion blocks on their streets. 

    Apparently they’ll benefit from the uplift in land values so the NIMBYs will be magically metamorphosising into YIMBYs. Homo economicus is in town and he’s rationally optimising for high density city living.  

    2. Allow builders of infrastructure projects like new railways to build along the line to fund it. 

    Okay so this isn’t a bad idea, I mean, not so sure how it works for HS2 but... 

    3. Put right to buy on steroids

    The council tenant uses their discount to buy a house first, then the council sells their old property to fund the discount. This means you don’t need to be able to afford your now unaffordable council house to benefit from the tax payer, er... I mean the property goldmine you’re rightfully sitting on. The barrel is scraped and we can finally get rid of all those pesky Labour-voting council tenants. Gideon will be pleased  

    Not sure what happens when all the remaining council housing is finally sold and bought up by slumlords. More housing benefit I guess. 

    4. Scrap stamp duty for properties under £1m

    This old chestnut. Yeah stamp duty is a rubbish tax. No, scrapping it won’t make housing cheaper. I guess it encourages the boomers to trade down... maybe? Whatever. 

    And that’s yer lot

    So there you have it guys and gals. The Tories are back in the game, the young Corbynistas are about to realise the error of their ways, and neoliberalism is saved.

    Rejoice ye, Rejoice ye!

    Sounds great. I hope Boris makes him housing minister.

    Nobody outside East Berlin wants to rely on the government to provide their housing and they couldn't exactly move to somewhere this was possible.

    Stamp duty is an invidious tax on mobility and a spanner in the Labour market.

    A child with a pile of Duplo blocks could add more aesthetic value than the big house builders. Those mansion blocks are seriously desirable.

     

    The country is full of empty land. There is no reason why young people with good jobs should need government handouts to own a home.

  5. 1 hour ago, winkie said:

    Fair point, but I can't see how £500k house in London band D costs less in council tax than a £250k house band D elsewhere.........time to do a new full CT review over all councils and maybe the wealth pockets of the country can be spread further afield more fairly and evenly.....;)

    That is largely because the tax rates in Central London councils are very low. A point worth remembering when the Mayor moans about Police cuts. 

    An inevitable result of any flavour of property value tax which this is. What's the alternative - a complex rebalancing mechanism through central government grants?

  6. 1 hour ago, Wayward said:

    I stand by my post and would support a tax on the massive untaxed wealth gains brought about by deliberate policies to inflate the price of housing. I dont think it is fair to describe this as the politics of envy. My view is certainly not uncommon. It is about fairness and rebalance.

    I am not left wing...I used to vote Conservative until I realised that they are not at all what they claim to be.

    It is quite clear it has everything about envy, hate and hitting the enemy.

    You are free to respond on substantive points of which I made many.

  7. 1 minute ago, iamnumerate said:

    Very true - but some strange people defend it.  I don't pay more tax than others because I earn more, but because I move more (hypothetically, I don't like moving and never will again I hope).

    Only a moron and a charlatan like George Osborne could ramp Stamp Duty and come up with a criminally stupid scheme like Help to Buy while standing on a so called conservative platform.

  8. 1 hour ago, nothernsoul said:

    This isnt the politics of envy. It is simply going back to a system similar to the domestic rates, that lasted from 1925 up to 1990, under governments of all political persuasion. Hardly communist,  and a perfectly justifiable objective for a party that is on the democratic left to decide to restore the balance. A balance that was deliberately, and just as ideologically, shifted the other way with the poll tax( and its relative the council tax) in 1990. 

     

     

    Explain the relevance and merits of rateable value in a modern context. 

    Because 3% of 55% does not fly in 2019 and wealth taxes are bad in general.

    Did you read the bit about smug property owners? 

  9. On 05/06/2019 at 12:50, Wayward said:

    It would be good to see a tax on current property value targeted at owners rather than occupiers if only to take the smile off smug owners boasting at dinner parties about how much their house had increased in value.  If this meant a painful additional tax burden on them and removed from tax burden on labour then great.

    It's also amazing putting progressive in the title of something cons a few people into thinking it is fair and sensible. Much of what is being talked about is neither.

     

    Council tax to owners not occupiers. What exactly is solved? The cost will be passed on. The only attraction of this is the erroneous perception the heathen enemy are being punished.

    The Labour Land group proposal is a tax of 3% of 55% of market value. So it is a garden tax as well as a Council Tax on steroids. It will still cost thousands to downsize once the Politburo have decreed you are under occupying.

    If you dare improve the housing stock by extending - BAM - you are hit immediately with a bigger tax bill even though the land has not changed. One of the very few sensible things about the current arrangements were this didn't happen until you sell.

    It doesn't support any localism agenda as the tax burden pivots enormously toward London and anyone lucky enough to be income poor but owning in the M25 will soon be cleansed to the salt mines of the north.

     

    London is one of the most successful cities on earth but this rabid orgy of envy politics would exile it to oblivion as like it's predecessor the Window Tax the best defence is to destroy value.

    Tax oddly enough works best when you tax bad things and nobody has explained what is so bad about houses, gardens or wealth.

     

  10. 2 hours ago, LondonBound said:

    So nothing to do with the economically illiterate labour mayor freezing fares (despite rising costs) in order to buy votes? How to drive TfL into the ground.

    Just a small example of what Comrade Corbyn and the rest would do to the entire country given half a chance chance.

    Yes - bus subsidies have ballooned to over £700m a year when most of England runs almost subsidy free. They need to scale back the absurd Freedom Pass too.

  11. 5 hours ago, Futuroid said:

    Change was always possible. Because the problem was nothing to do with the EU.

    You are still giving out the old "protest vote" justification. A protest vote is all well and good, if you are clear what you are protesting about and you are targeting the issue or the person causing the problem.

    If the problem was immigration, Brexit is not a solution: Over 50% of immigration to the UK comes from outside the EU, and this will simply increase to ensure a constant supply of doctors, teachers, farm labourers, etc. Before freedom of movement, the UK issued temporary visas to workers from Russia and EE (during the "cold war").

    If the problem was globalisation, Brexit not a solution: The preferred approach - Global Britain™ - means more cheap imports, with almost zero protection and continued favoured status for banks and finance.

    If the problem was inequality, Brexit is not a solution: Already the government is looking at workers rights with a gleam in their eye, beyond some hot air May talked (primarily to stroke her own ego), there has been no move to make things like zero hours contracts less attractive for employers, or to give employees representation on company boards (as in Germany).

    If the problem was the ruling class/elite, Brexit is not a solution: The leave vote was bankrolled by tax dodging billionaires, some from outside the UK and a few who are not even (and never have been British citizens). Power has been handed to people like Boris Johnson (Eton, Oxford) and Jacob Rees-Mogg (Eton, Oxford) who are both polished products of the exact same institutions as "call me Dave" Cameron.

    A protest vote that does not address the problems you are protesting against is not a protest vote, it's simply a tantrum.

    In 2015 before the referendum it was two-thirds EU migration:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34931725

    The problem isn't really EU migration - when it was all rich countries (EU14) it worked reasonably well. Check out Fig 4 below from the ONS - it is the high concentration of EU8+2 migration in low value added manufacturing and service jobs that is the problem - they are simply driving down wages and productivity while driving many others onto welfare. Open borders between low and high wage economies is not good for the latter and they aren't paying enough taxes to cover the public services they are consuming.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/articles/migrationandthelabourmarketuk/2016

  12. 8 minutes ago, ****-eyed octopus said:

    Just about everything.

    The reasons most people don't give a flying fart about the economics are

    1) economists are snake oil salesmen. Their forecasts are less reliable than a long range weather one.

    2) They're no better off now than they were 20 years ago - & often worse off. 

    I don't know if 2) is down to the EU; I doubt it, & so I suspect do many leavers. It doesn't matter. The EU has certainly done nothing for the average Joe in this country, & getting rid means we can at least get closer to dismantling the whole fecking rotten structure of bureaucrats in sinecures who want to rule our lives without doing a useful day's work in their lives.

    There. I've said it.

     

    The Item Club has upgraded the UK GDP forecast from 1.4% to 1.7% with barely a month of the year gone. They really are completely useless.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/02/05/brexit-gloom-lifted-uk-growth-upgraded/

  13. 2 hours ago, highYield said:

    It's a British business, apparently as a result of Brexit, expanding overseas into the Asian market. They must be selling the berries where they are grown, in China - otherwise hopefully the cost of air freight would more than make up for the savings from cheaper workers.

    Take your point that it's exploitation of Chinese workers, apparently caused by it possibly being more expensive in the future to exploit continental EU fruit pickers, in the UK.

    Hopefully, if we leave, focus will turn to the CAP replacement - landowners will lose some of their subsidies that encourage them to hoard land, and the land can be turned over to more productive uses.

    https://landworkersalliance.org.uk

     

    Sounds like very sensible economics. It costs £6k to school a child for a year, where is the sense in importing Labour for such little valued added? If it can't be made more productive it can be done abroad and the produce imported. The remaining Labour and Capital are put to more productive use.

  14. On 1/13/2018 at 11:15 PM, mathschoc said:

    Gford is plummeting. Plenty of stock which has been on for over 6 months. Of course agents are sneaky, every so often they get taken off zoopla/rightmove, then back on after two weeks as a new listing.

    Gford is massively overpriced. I sympathise, I am getting on a bit with 3 kids, desperately needing to settle. But I am not prepared to make a great big mistake because I am desperate.

    Hold out, if you can. This baby is tanking.

    Guildford has a hell of a way to plummet. Out towards Farnborough looks much more affordable and very little in it London commuting wise?

  15. On 12/4/2017 at 10:39 AM, iamnumerate said:

    I have a friend who moved to Hampshire in the 90s and told me that then there were loads of jobs in the M4 corridor but now it is just London - a long and tiring commute.

    This could all change with Crossrail. They are claiming Reading - Canary Wharf in 68mins in 2019. Reading has terrible housing stock - lots of narrow terraces, lots of bedrooms linked only to other bedrooms and lots of rancid run down ex rental stock they don't even photograph the inside of. Twyford down the line is small, nicer, but has very little stock and Maidenhead is an expensive dump.

  16. On 7/9/2017 at 4:28 PM, dougless said:

    Why Bristol?  It has always seemed a busy, slightly down at heel place with poor air quality in many parts.  There are a few posh areas but they are very expensive.  Traffic is very bad so would I consider somewhere commutable by train if it must be Bristol.  As you can tell, I am not a fan of Bristol.

    In many ways Bristol is like London. Politically very left wing, lots of crime, very expensive housing, very congested and polluted but lots going on. Some fantastic old housing stock in places like Clifton and Brislington, but very pricey.

    Unlike London, the Council Tax is also sky high.

    Keep an eye on the Severn Bridge tolls as if/when these become free, lots of other options may come into play.

  17. On 1/18/2017 at 11:07 PM, underpressuretobuy said:

    I would also be interested in any info anyone has for this area. 

    Reasonably cheap, certainly much cheaper than Bath and Bristol to which you are getting easy access. Some very nice rolling hills, downs, countryside and more white horses than a day at Epsom. But Westbury itself is fairly unexciting red brick market town which has grown a lot in recent years through suburban sprawl.

  18. On 2/9/2018 at 8:50 AM, crouch said:

    You are right, new schools and GP/dental surgeries can be built can be built; there's just one problem: there will probably be a shortage of staff to run them, as there is already a shortage in many areas.

    Much of this argument is not about NIMBYism it's actually about the strains imposed by a growing population. Historically many small villages have had small scale housing developments on the outskirts and this has resulted in manageable expansion but these mega estates really will change the local character of the area and is it so selfish to want sensible expansion?The reason builders want to build in these areas is because they will receive premium prices and to hell with the locals; it has nothing to do with meeting a housing shortage which rarely exists anyway.

    In some ways NIMBYism is related to immigration: immigration is manageable if it is carried out at a rate which will enable it to be absorbed but that is not what is happening.

    There are always some who only care about local house prices but the fact is that there is a serious issue behind this and it has nothing to do with boomer selfishness.

    Oxford has one of the worst housing shortages in the country and affordability as bad as in London. 

    If you aren't going to build homes next to a main road and main line railway station a few minutes away from Oxford City Centre, where are you going to build them? They will put in schools and a surgery as they always do on such a development or it would not be a 'sustainable community' otherwise it is a pretty nondescript area of flat arable land. I would rather this weren't necessary but after 15 years of open borders there aren't many other options.

×
×
  • 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.