A17

Perhaps there is already some form of herd immunity in London and New York for the people who continued working. Going back to May, there were news reports that 17% of Londoners had antibodies, and presumably it is a little higher now. I'm assuming a large number of the 17% are those who were still interacting as normal during the lockdown. So if you consider the "unlocked-down" as their own population (30% of the total London population?), freely mixing with each other, it isn't a huge jump to there being a limited herd immunity. To summarize, perhaps enough healthcare workers, supermarket workers and bus drivers have had it to mean that as a combined group there may be herd immunity. So as and when London reopens, and the "locked-down" start to interact more normally, presumably there will be a dilution of the herd immunity, and cases would rise again. However, some effects may remain to slow the spread of the disease if 20% or so of the population are immune. What does this mean? I am no virologist. But as it stands, those countries/regions that had a "controlled first wave" like Italy, Spain and New York seem to be faring better than those who locked down "pre first wave". Perhaps having a 20% immunity rate (in conjunction with social distancing, hand washing and other precautions) is enough to slow the cases to a trickle.

Nope, the similarity between the logo and a generic ClipArt logo from the Windows 95 era would be pointed out the next day, but we would be assured that it was very different, it had very deep meaning and symbolism, a lot of effort went into it, and was completely worth the £5billion. Then it would be forgotten about.

£5billion will barely get the logo designed and letterheads printed.

On my local area Facebook group (close to downtown Chicago) people are upset that even though their houses/apartments are being listed for lower prices than 3 years ago (with the obligatory comments on "how much we've spent upgrading it") they aren't selling, or are receiving much lower offers than asking. A combination of job losses, inner city riots, and 3.5 months and counting of being stuck in a shoebox with your laptop on the kitchen table (whilst your friends on Facebook are posting pictures of drinks and barbecues in spacious backyards, and their home office setups) mean that the "downtown lifestyle" isn't what it used to be. Although I must admit that I own a one bedroom apartment in London, so it isn't all good news for me!

They were selling mail order prefab homes well over 100 years ago. Apparently it saved the customer 30-40% over traditional building methods.

Sounds like the wake up call for tradespeople when the Eastern European countries joined the EU.

I live in Chicago. Here are a few anecdotes and thoughts on it. People do leave Chicago and Illinois due to the taxes. Illinois has had the second highest decrease in percentage population over the past ten years (West Virginia had the highest). Taxes always seem to be a one way bet between you and the government, and I think more and more people are realizing that there are better options in the USA. Whilst Illinois isn't the highest for anything, it has a combination of high-ish sales taxes, state income taxes, property taxes and property prices. Illinois is an interesting state. It is the size of England, has a world city the size of London wedged right in one corner, but with only 3-4 million spread over the rest of it. Chicago has suffered less than other rust belt cities. It has managed to maintain and grow white collar jobs, partially due to its location. Due to its central location, with two major airports, lots of jobs that involve travel (consultancy, sales etc.) can be based here. It is still an attractive city to people, with lots to offer in terms of amenities. However, I think its location is both a blessing and a curse to it. It is the only major city for hundreds (if not thousands) of miles in any direction, so it acts as a natural hub for people and business. However, it's isolation means that it lacks the growth multipliers of other major cities nearby (think of the Texas triangle, coastal California, and the Boston-NY-Philadelphia-DC mega-region). In terms of crime, on a day to day basis you do not have to worry (aside from the usual precautions of any big city) depending on where and how you live. A lot of the crime is gang related, which obviously the vast majority of people avoid. However, gang crime can obviously make your life a living hell if it is in your area. Prices are cheap for a reason in parts. I agree that there are a lot of drug addicts and begging in most areas - certainly in downtown and on the trains. Unfortunately you just learn to live with it. A sad point I haven't touched upon is the racial segregation - I think by some measures Chicago is still the most segregated city in the USA. A fact that a lot of northerners gloss over is that segregation was prevalent here as well, just not codified in law. Unfortunately this meant there was the attitude that nothing needed to change in the 1960s onwards. Things are changing slowly, but there are neighborhoods/suburbs that are still 95% mono-ethnicity, sometimes separated by a single street.

My rough calculation suggests that a property tax of 0.5% of value per year would have the same revenue as council tax, looking overall at the country. Would it be viewed as a replacement of equal value as council tax, or to raise further government revenue. What would it be used for - local services or the national pot? Just out of interest.... So a £10,000,0000 house in Westminster would now pay £50,000 pa instead of £1,500 I would pay £1,250 instead of £700 (crappy part of Wandsworth) My father would pay £2500-£3000 instead of £2000 (suburban London) And the average house in Liverpool would pay £900 instead of £2000. Again, different options for raising a property tax Single percentage across the country England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland set their own rates County sets a rate Local Authority sets a rate Any combination of the above So you could have UK (0.2%) + Greater London (0.2%) + Wandsworth (0.1%) = 0.5% overall rate

Yep, and you run into the problem where the state/municipality end up killing the golden goose. As people leave the city, they have to raise the taxes to compensate for the long term liabilities, setting off a tailspin. Despite the problems with UK's centralization, there is a certain degree of stability provided. Idiot local politicians can only do limited damage, and teachers and police in Northampton/Liverpool can't be short term bribed too much. The point I am really trying to make is that there isn't a huge untapped well of money there. People like the idea of a mansion tax, but they don't seem to realize that it would have to affect predominantly grannies in Guildford rather than Oligarchs in Mayfair in order to raise significant funds. And like all taxes, politicians cannot help but expand the reach and raise the rates. 1% on properties over £1m in 2020 would become 2% on properties over £500k by 2035.

If we apply a 1% tax pa on the house value we get £79 billion pa. Council tax take is about £39 billion - I am assuming that this would be replaced by the land value tax. So approximately doubling the income. A decent amount, but not a massive game changer in the grand scheme of things. People moan about council tax being based on 1991 values, but if we move to a higher take there will be far more re-evaluations and challenges, adding costs. If we start to move towards a 2% pa value tax, you begin to start hitting suburban people in London with £10-12k pa bills, with maybe £5k pa for the average home across the country. Of course, if people had to pay higher taxes then prices would not have risen so exponentially. I am based in the USA, and in my area property taxes vary from 1.5 - 2.5% pa. You can see how the higher tax areas have lower prices, and vice versa, as a property tax becomes a significant factor to budget for. Council tax from my viewpoint seems to be an annoyance, rather than a major factor in choosing which house to buy. Taxes can be charged on many levels, with the state, county and city each with their own cumulative rate. I would be wary of being in certain councils in the UK if they had the ability to set their own property tax rates...

This is the main issue to me with a UBI. It would either require a massive increase in the overall welfare spend to bring it up to an an amount per person in order to live very modestly (such as the state pension value). Or, as you suggest, we start to re-add housing benefits, disability benefits, and an increase for old people which essentially brings us back to where we are now. A big argument for a UBI is that it would simplify claiming - if everybody receives UBI and nothing more there would be no spending on means testing, assessments , complicated processing etc. It is argued that this would lower the cost and free up cash to be paid to people. But we would end up with the worst of both worlds if we have a UBI as well as maintaining all the "essential" other benefits. Would children (or their parents) be entitled to the UBI? A half share?

Total UK annual spending on pensions and welfare - £287.4 billion (ref 1) Total UK Population - 63,200,000 (ref 2), approximately 21% are under 18 So, dividing one by the other gives a weekly income of £87 per person, which would raise to £111 if under 18s did not receive it (or their parents on their behalf). Would children be eligible for it? No matter how much you try and make the sums add up, it would be hard for a single person to survive on £87pw if you have to pay for accommodation (renting a room in the cheapest part of the country), but maybe just about on £111? A family of four receiving £87 per week each would take home £1,500 per month though... Starting to look tempting - maybe the same as a £24,000 salary (pre tax). Ref 1 - https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/ Ref 2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom

A car doesn't cost £20,000. It costs £200 a month forever. As people move away from buying outright towards leasing savings are apparently less important.

I can understand the poor having no savings, but the number of people with seemingly good jobs and affluent lifestyles who would be in trouble in short notice is astounding. Stories online of people on six figure incomes complaining that they have already ran out of money as the governments furlough "only" covers £2000pm.

The middle east think we are disgusting for eating pigs. We think France is disgusting for eating horse. Don't get me wrong, I think the live markets in China are horrible, but we just keep it hidden in the west.

How are western slaughterhouses and factory farming different than Chinese live food markets? Hygiene is pretty crappy in all of these places. Less chance of inter-species transmission as a western meat packing plant will just handle pigs or cows only?

I've noticed that too. I wonder why that is? Could it somewhat stem from the fact that the UK government has a policy of no ransom payments in hostage situations, whereas other European counties' governments will do so? Different situations, but an attitude of "sort your own mess out"? Even in normal times, there are warnings over the FCO website that there is very little that the UK government can do to help if you are in trouble overseas.

I think its more how what 30 years ago would have been almost unheard of luxuries (trips to the Caribbean, and island hopping in south-east Asia) are commonplace, but without the financial back-up that trips would have previously had.

It's always striking how people have such expensive trips and belongings, but cannot scrounge up a few thousand pounds when needed. I'm not talking about the genuinely poor, but those who have nice lifestyles. Even if you didn't want to spend the money (maybe they are angling for a subsidized flight from the government, or their original booking being honored), surely at this stage you would say "F*ck it, I just want to get home"?

I used to live in that exact street as a student. Those houses are crumbling. They have been subdivided so many times, and lots of them are still HMOs. They look impressive from the outside, but are not built to the quality of the Georgian townhouses they hoped to replicate. Basically late Victorian McMansions. Location is OK for transport, but there are far nicer places to live in the local area. You are wedged in by the West Kensington estate to the east, and the A4 main road to the north.

I was thinking about those people who could afford either a "luxury apartment" or a suburban house, but would have chosen to live in the apartment to be closer to work and perceived amenities. Maybe there will also be a move away from London altogether, as you can obviously get a reasonable sized house for less money in most places.

Agreed. I have friends with kids crammed into small London homes when for the same money they could have a nice big house in the suburbs, which would have a similar commute time (suburban rail vs London underground). When I suggested the suburbs, they didn't want to leave "London", despite not being able to do any of the fun stuff regularly due to them having kids.

I'm not sure. With respect to food, I've heard lots of stories about people being unable to get deliveries, or having deliveries with many items missing. There is a lot to be said for physically being in the supermarket to ensure that you get food. Are people going to be willing to wait at home for your food delivery later in the week, when you believe that the stores are being stripped now? Will people be happy to go back to relying on food deliveries? Will people still trust takeaway food delivered to your house?

I have been thinking - does anybody else agree that the aftermath of the coronavirus may lead to a long term switch in housing demand as part of lifestyle changes? I can see a marked drop off in demand for inner city apartments, and a rise in people wanting to live in the suburbs, smaller towns or countryside? I am looking towards after the virus has passed, rather than immediate reactions. People having been made to stay at home in small apartments (perhaps with a balcony) would want a larger space with a garden. The walls close in a bit more each day. Perhaps the typical young married couple who would have started in a trendy inner city apartment before moving to a house when the kids arrive will want to move to a house earlier. Certainly, I think that anybody who has kids currently in an apartment will want to move. Changes in food purchasing. Before the crisis, people in the inner cities may have stopped at a small grocery store several times a week after work, buying only what they could carry by hand on public transport. Now people may see the advantage of having a car, with the ability to do a "big weekly shop". Storage will become more important. People will value their personal space more. A rise in car usage? Will people be less comfortable using public transport or rideshares? Especially if the virus prevention measures drift on for some time? A home with a dedicated parking spot will be at an advantage. Similarly, will people be happy with communal doors, elevator buttons etc that there are in a large apartment building? Employers may be more accepting of homeworking - especially if the government continues to encourage it. What would you prefer: a small apartment and easy commute five days a week, or a house with a long commute three days a week? If people will be working from home more, they may want a home office (or at least a dedicated desk space) rather than working on the couch. Young people more inclined to stay in the family home for longer? I am 32, and I have seen some of my contemporaries return from their inner city apartments and flatshares to the comfortable family home (with garden) for the duration. People may feel more comfortable there in future than a flat-share with four others in London. I'd be interested in hearing if anybody else has a similar view or a counter argument. As I said, this would be after the virus has passed, and we have returned to some sort of normality, rather than actions taken right now.