A17

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1040709/Apartheid-UK-How-controversial-law-integrate-social-housing-new-developments-creating-mini-ghettos.html Not all had been well there. Going back to 2008!

That looks pretty grim. Reminds me of the creepy artificial Disney town called Celebration in Florida, only with less sunshine and less parking.

Or use the shower connector without spraying water everywhere? How frequently do people have baths now, especially stupidly placed ones? Check out the floorplan for the bathrooms. It may just be artistic licensing, but how do you actually get to the bath or shower without having to climb over a toilet or sink. No photos of the bathrooms. Finally, the work surfaces in the kitchen. Not enough space to store herbs and oils in cabinets, nor to put away "non-daily" appliances like the mixer or blender.

Could it be the sold price was for the building, and now they are selling individual flats? Also check out the basis £179 Ikea bed. Really fitting the property price tag.

Not quite. I put in £500 pcm earnings, 15 hours a week worked. £200 pw private rent. Kids ages as the article, no disabilities. It recommended universal credit.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/aug/14/uk-holiday-hunger-schemes-deprived-children-summer Another Guardian case study. Earns £500 per month, but a quick play with the entitledto website suggests that she would get over £350 pw in benefits. Close to £2000 per month take home for working as a term time dinner lady. No mention of a partner or child maintenance. And she states that it costs £30 to £40 extra a week to feed a child during the school holidays. £8 for a home made lunch, as I presume she has to provide breakfast and dinner all year round.

Does the geographic isolation of the country and low population density play a part in high prices? I presume a lot of building materials have to be shipped from overseas, followed by difficulties in moving them from the main ports to the different cities? Similarly the cost of building the infrastructure needed for housing and supporting the population: roads, utilities etc?

The housing quality is generally dreadful in New Zealand too. Have a look on Google streetview around some of the smaller cities. Lots of prefabs and wooden homes, often without central heating. In a climate similar to the UK. https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/22-08-2018/mould-sweet-mould-inside-new-zealands-damp-housing-crisis/

Does Johnson want to lose? My theory... Boris Johnson did not want leave to win the referendum. His ideal situation was to throw his weight behind leave, but lose narrowly. This would bring the party behind him, and show off his credentials, without any of the Brexit fallout to deal with. A glorious failure. This would leave him a clear route to the premiership when David Cameron stood down in 2018 or 2020. Remember back in 2016, the eventual replacement for Cameron was widely expected to be Johnson or George Osborne (remember him?). Of course as we know, leave won the referendum. Yet Johnson failed to stand as Cameron's replacement, acting as a half-hearted foreign secretary for a year or so. He quit when the going got tough, preferring to snipe from the sidelines. Remember, he voted for May's deal at the third vote. Eventually now, he is a weak prime minister. What are his options? Take the blame and fallout for a no-deal Brexit? Break his own rules and go grovelling to Brussels? A humiliating u-turn of some sort? Or a cunning plan like this? 1. Call a general election, and refuse a pact with the Brexit party. We are still wanting a deal, see? 2. The "leave" vote is split. Labour sneak in, with a loose coalition of SNP and Lib Dems. The price of their support? A second referendum. 3. Another referendum. Boris Johnson again campaigns for leave. But this time not as hard. Things have changed, people are tired. "Remain" wins this time, and reluctantly Britain decides to stay in the EU. 4. Article 50 revoked. The naughty step for the UK. But that was your only chance - Article 50 cannot be invoked for a second time. No changing your mind again Britain! 5. Boris Johnson remains leader of the Tories, biding his time. He's sealed his credentials as a true blue, but can do no more regarding Europe. Let the dust settle for a few years. A weak Labour government collapses in 2021, followed by another election. Boris hoovers up the votes this time, and in doing so seals his legacy as the first "two separate termer" since the 1970s.

You do have PAYE equivalent, but the property tax deducted at your end of year tax return. This goes towards determining your taxes owed or refunded. It's not offset against income tax, but is deducted from your earnings. Example: Earnings=$60,000, property tax = $7,000, income tax is payable on $53,000.

I live in the USA. Some points about property taxes that I find interesting. Property taxes can be deducted from your income when paying your federal taxes. However, Trump is trying to limit the maximum deduction to around $12000. The reason being it stops high tax blue states (New York, California, Illinois) from depriving the federal government of money by having first dibs on it, and as most people pay nowhere near that much in property tax it is something that only affects the elite. Due to the fractured nature of local government, with multiple small municipalities, property taxes can vary quite significantly over a small area. This affects property prices significantly, as the tax can be close to the equivalent of another mortgage to budget for. Do you go for the high tax-low price neighborhood or the low tax-high price neighborhood, as you will end up paying the same each month. It really starts to affect retirees, as property tax continues indefinitely. What is manageable on a working salary becomes less so on a pension. It is a big cause of retirees moving to low tax states (plus the awful weather in some parts!). As property tax is based on the home value, if an area gentrifies it can force homeowners out as the tax increases year on year. Unfortunately, you are at the mercy of municipalities. It can also lead to taxes spiraling out of control if they need to raise more money.

I seem to remember a few years ago shipping container homes were marketed as an attractive affordable alternative for young professionals. What's changed? https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/oct/09/living-steel-box-shipping-containers-future-housing

Agreed. My point is that simply saying "reduce regulation" or "low regulation country" can mean many different things to different people.

However, each city running its own services leads to a huge amount of duplication. A city isn't always what you'd imagine a city to be - I work in a city of just over 2000 people, surrounded by other cities of a few thousand people! You get a patchwork quilt of municipalities, all of which have to have their own well-remunerated mayor, council, police chief and fire chief, with little to no real sharing of resources. Then on top of that you have the county government, and on top of that you have the state! I remember a few years ago a fuss was made as some of the west London boroughs (Westminster, K&C and H&F IIRC) were merging services to try and save money - imagine if all the London boroughs had their own individual police service and fire service.

Three meanings of low regulation, with some overlap. 1. Low safety and environment regulation. No hard hats required. Dump what you want in the river. 2. Low corporate regulation. Ease of setting up companies. No need for "local partners" or "joint ventures" to skim off the top. Government generally staying out of things - simple or no permits needed. Lack of protectionism. 3. Low personnel regulation. Fire people easily. Lack of unions or restrictive trade guilds. So one example is India - low safety and environmental regulation, but good luck trying to set up a factory there as a foreigner without masses of duplicated paperwork and having your local partner skim off the top. On the other hand, the UK: strict safety rules but fairly easy to set up a company and run it honestly. Slightly different to say France, in that you can fire people easily and it isn't necessary to have a government certificate or license to do a lot of jobs.

Also breathlessly reported that 59% have one parent in work... So 41% of capped households have no work?

Social housing - see my point about regular house building. It'll basically be another huge bung to the big house builders, as they will be the ones actually making the money from it. The NHS is still nationally owned. Do you mean buying companies out of their PFI contracts? Another bung. Renationalising utilities - what would that actually achieve in terms of stimulus spending? I don't think anybody is really unhappy with the quality of services that are present in the UK - there are no rolling blackouts or water shortages. Are you hoping for lower bills. There is an argument for the government to improve telecommunications though, like 5G. Railways - same point. Perhaps lower fares, but again it would hardly be a huge short term stimulus spend. The military - I can agree with that somewhat. Joining the armed forces is basically the only career that significant numbers of people can join straight out of school, be trained by their employer, and have a decent career. However, this will require long term spending on manpower and equipment. The situation that should be avoided in any spending is simply swapping the government bung from one group of people, to another group of people, to the exclusion of others.

What do you suggest we spend it on? Infrastructure? The days of telling all unemployed men who want a days work to turn up at the end of the autobahn or the dam site in the Colorado river are gone. The money would all be gone on studies and consultancy fees years before a single shovelful of earth is overturned. Look at HS2. I used to wonder about corruption in the 3rd world and the Mediterranean countries, where millions of pounds allocated to infrastructure projects would just disappear into pockets. The same thing happens in the UK, just into different pockets. Housing? Say the government announces that they will fund the building of millions of new homes... Just another bung to the big builders. Welfare? Pensions? The idea of giving more money away to those on benefits won't work.

'.. After carrying out an inquiry into the issue, MPs on the Committee found the rate of efficiency measures - such as insulation and low energy lighting - installed in UK homes under government schemes has plummeted by 95 per cent since 2012..." It might be simply that everybody who wants to make their home more energy efficient has already had it done. For example, once everybody had switched to low energy lightbulbs (by 2012), there could be no further improvement through that route. Low hanging fruit and all that.

An anecdote: I live in the USA but am from London originally. I recently met somebody here who has spent time in both countries, and is currently living in London. He was complaining about the cost of housing, but said that things were moving in the right direction. He gave me a story of some friends of his: Bought in 2012: £425k Carried out £25k of work Sold in 2019 for £625k "Although they were assured they would have sold for £800k the year before, they were happy to get that in the end" So, doing the maths, they made a paper profit of £175k over the seven years. However, as an annualized rate increase of 5% pa. Still very high, but certainly lower than in the past.

It is somewhat similar here. I've seen purposely managed apartment buildings with gas (cooking and hot water), basic internet and water included. Heating may be through central hot air ducts. Electricity tends to be billed by individual apartments though. Property tax is included. Yep. It was a shock getting my first monthly $200 gas bill in winter. Even in the summer it is $80. Electricity ranges from $35 per month in the winter to $80 in the summer with the air-conditioning running. This is for a two bedroom 19th century apartment, albeit with a freezing basement underneath (keeps it cold in winter and in summer!). Your home and climate hugely affect the bills in this country, far more than in the UK (unless you live in some huge rambling old pile). There is a huge difference between the UK and USA. In the UK the hard work is affording the house in the first place. Once you have the house, due to the smaller sizes, milder climate (both summer and winter) and the low property taxes your work is pretty much done. In the USA, you can buy a huge McMansion for comparative peanuts, but then have to face the utility bills and property taxes.

I live in Chicago. The house search websites here give a handy pie chart showing the break down of your total costs (mortgage, HOA, tax, insurance). It is eye opening to see that with a decent deposit, your mortgage would only be half of your costs. And remember, these costs do not stop once your mortgage is over. In the past, local property taxes could be deducted from your federal tax bill. However, Trump is trying to cap the deduction at about $10,000pa IIRC. His reasoning is that rich people in high tax blue states like California, New York and Illinois are getting "first dibs" on the money ahead of the federal government. Plus they would never vote for him. High property taxes do act as an incentive to downsize, and they do act as a drag on prices. In Chicago and the surrounding areas, taxes frequently run into five figures for a decent family home. A lot of retirees leave to go to cheaper states to save on the taxes (the winters don't help either!). The tax rate here ranges from about 1.8% to 3% pa. A $500k home could be paying $15k pa in taxes. Apply the same numbers to London and it makes for interesting thoughts....

People used to laugh at concerns over the "Schrodinger's immigrant". People laughing that people were concerned that an immigrant would at the same time take your job, and at the same time sit around on benefits. What a joke! The unemployment rate is the Tories political kryptonite. They will do absolutely anything they can to get it down and keep it low, as it is the easiest thing to beat them with. Anything they can do to fiddle the figures they will do, hence very little done on tax credits. Selling MLM crap - self employed! Splitting one full-time job three ways - jobs created! They know there is nothing they can really do to increase decent productive work or the number of jobs, and know that serious welfare reform will increase the unemployment rate, giving Labour a stick to beat them with. Best to keep the tax credits flowing and hope that something turns up.

Why do you think people get annoyed at this being questioned? Do they believe that a 16hpw cleaner deserves a £35k pa salary? Are they so wealthy that £35k seems like a pittance to them? Are they genuinely happy for their tax money to go to a cleaner, even if they take home less money themselves? Is there a form of defensive pride - they don't want to admit that they take home less than a part time cleaner whilst working full time in a professional job, and are secretly unhappy about it? At least nobody really seems to be questioning the numbers ("people on benefits don't get that much!"), although there is still the usual nonsense ("the housing benefit goes to the landlord, so it shouldn't be counted in the total benefits") ?

When looking for houses as students in London, we used to called that the concept of the "showroom slum". The student slumlords would show you their most awful apartment, followed by ones which by comparison would look very attractive (attractive within the realms of student HMOs in London: fewer holes in the walls, a fridge in the kitchen rather than a bedroom, perhaps a hint of cleaning).