@contradevian
-
Posts
21,787 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by @contradevian
-
-
Nothing to add other than some faces of wronged boomers. Life is so unfair, boohoo.
-
I think the real winners are those who claim TC's on top of some other lucrative but undisclosed income. It really is just free money for them, and there doesn't appear to be a great deal of scrutiny.
Good luck to them
The unearned economic rent capture of the rentier, land and property owner is 'undisclosed' too and paying tax on it almost optional, or politically unacceptable.
I hope the 'The Parliament of the Rentiers' creates such a massive sh*tstorm, the demo's over the weekend will look like a picnic.
-
Yes because the age demographic is everything in the above scenario.
I visit my dad who lives in over 50's sheltered accom. It used to be over 55's but the age limit has been lowered to 50.
You now get "young" 50 yr old's still partying and playing loud music and having balcony parties! the council has had to ban BBQ's
Can't believe I qualify age wise for sheltered accomodation!
-
Trust me a HMO is not somewhere you would want to live for longer than a short period.
Unless you had somewhere else to store your valuables.
So it's looking like this post july 8th budget:
Under 25's no housing benefit at all
25-50 housing benefit for single room only
50+ housing benefit for sheltered accom
Hmmm what will the 1 bed flat holding BTL'ers do?
I imagine the 3 bed terrace holding BTL'ers will be rubbing their hands at the thought of captive tennants for their sharply converted HMO?
Actually that's a bit of a blinder from the tories to landlords as what they will lose from tennants under 25 (usually in HMO's) they will recoup from surge in 35-50 yr olds looking for single rooms.
It could even be a rent pumper!!!
Free up the 1 bed flats for single mothers?
Convert them into micro HMO's 2/3 person accomodation.
Welcome to Rentier Britain.
-
True,the problem though isnt the mortgage bill.Its the huge expense of the running of the estate.ALMOS are even worse and now control most council housing.Their housing stock was paid off mostly decades ago.Our local one now tends to buy up ex council houses when they come up.A friend of mine bought for £13k MEWed up to £65k in the boom years for holidays,cars etc and just sold back to the ALMO for £67k.In affect the ALMO paid £65k for a house they sold at £13k.
When the council ran the stock you could rent a 3 bed for around £36 a week including water.They are now around £90.The rent rise is something like RPI+0.5%+£2.00 a year.Compounded thats way higher than local wages go up.
Alongside that the local ALMO wins lots of awards for being such a great place to work.Flexi time,pensions,wage rates,sick pay,promotion etc etc.I have a feeling these might be a target for housing benefit cuts soon.
Can't keep putting the rent up either. Or the people who they are intended for won't be able to afford them.
-
+1
The profits and benefits of everything accrue to land owners not just those of land.
-
Because working and consumption taxation isn't a choice? Because property rights appear to trump any others? Because common rights over land no longer exist? Because the net long-term cost of subsidised social housing vs private is probably less than zero? Because taxation paid by those in receipt of housing welfare probably pays for it anyway? Because the most significant subsidy of rises in land values that accrue to the owner subset far outweighs the 'benefit' budget? etc
Single people in 1 bed flats are not the problem. The problem is that the profits and benefits of land and housing accrue to landowners rather than everyone who pays for it. It's an divisive accumulation game that's been played for centuries and people (you) are still falling for it.
+1
-
One fundamental problem. The proceeds of a Land Value Tax should go to central coffers NOT to the locals.
LVT is partly about taxing unearned gains created from various sources not the responsibility or result of actions by the owner:
1. Access to proximate (commutable) incomes.
2. Local infrastructure and buildings allowed by the community and paid for by others
3. Increases in the money supply created by the community's central bank policy
4. Increase in population created by the community
IT is NOT a local community tax in order to work. It doesn't just replace council tax. It is a national tax looked at in conjunction with other taxes like income tax etc.
Sounds like it is an idea by someone sititng in London thinking how all those lovely head offices, property values and the like could be plundered to improve his own little area and life whilst happily ignoring slum towns and lack of real work outwith the cordon of the M25.
The nature of land has a tendency to create proximate credit bubbles which flood into the local economy making it look far more successful than it really is - lifting revenues and wages in its wake. It is the cycle of this destructive tendency of land that need to be broken and more livable, smaller and more balanced cities created throughout the UK like a Germany or Holland.
Tell @joesarling your concerns please (you are on Twitter). Some LVT'er's have also raised concerned varying the rates by area as they say its self defeating.
-
The Reset group has proposed a 1% transaction tax on BACS and CHAPS transfers. This would raise more than the current 300+ tax laws combined. All taxes could then be scrapped. As it's taken at the point of use there is little chance of tax avoidance. The figures do add up.
As fru-gal said such ideas that are sensible are unlikely to be introduced.
Its a good idea, but still doesn't 'fix' the problem of land as a means of economic rent capture, which is what creates the inequality of wealth.
-
Less tax. Less Goverment intervention. Less public sector.
more free market. More money in peoples pockets.
Taxation is the problem not the solution.
So say the neo libertarians, but unless you socialise the rents or have some kind of Zimbabwean land reform, all you have in your neo libertarian utopia is feudalism
-
Reducing the tax base to just err landlowners sound so oh so simple.
Watch the powers that be avoid it the simplcity of it though, and dredge up the usual 'granny in her mansion' argument (which could be easily dealt with by the way)
-
Joe Sarling (@joesarling) has put forward a proposal for a London Land Levy and I thought it might be of interest to HPC forum members
http://commenttoday.org/2015/06/18/the-london-land-levy-a-regional-land-value-tax/
Currently, London boroughs can retain revenue from one and a half taxes – all of council tax and up to 50% of business rates. The revenue this generates is £3.5bn and £3.3bn per annum respectively across all boroughs. To estimate the level at which a levy on land would generate the same revenue, I have calculated the total value of property (private homes at full market value, social homes at 30% of market value, commercial property at full market value at existing use) as a proxy for land cost* – this comes to £1.8 trillion (or £1,800bn).
This therefore means that in order to replace all of council tax and half of business rates, the average levy (charged to the owner) on London land per year is 0.4%. With this, we can scrap one and a half taxes in London.
How about one more stage? Let’s add income tax on to the London Land Levy too. When we do this, we are more comprehensively shifting the burden of tax from earned income to unearned wealth. As it can be seen, we’d need a London Land Levy of under 3% to cover this cost too.You can also contact Joe on Twitter if you have any comments and suggestions for help move the debate forward
-
A lot of that welfare is going into bricks and mortar though, so I don't know if this is good or bad news.
I've no doubt no rentiers will suffer in any cuts
-
and the 4 million UKIP voters (and most people to the right of the decimated Labour Party).
Carswell has stated he will vote with Government. Rather disgraceful as a lot of UKIP votes in the North came from natural Labour voters, so that protest worked then
-
I have to say, that I know of no-one at all, who isnt on a payscale, that has seen a rise for some time.
Must be IT where a quick bit of onshoring/offshoring will soon put paid to any skills bubbles!
-
Just noticed on a Facebook thread. A Rover 200 S Reg for sale low mileage. £150. Only got an exhaust blow and its threatened with the scrappy if no one buys.
I think cars are getting like TV's. Any fault and they get scrapped rather than being repaired.
-
*IF* the loan terms do not change.
I fail to see how HE can continue when so much money has been lent to the Unis/lecturers PLUS the student loan to the student.
I agree, on the current terms the debt is nothing more than an extra tax on people who went to Uni. I have no problem with that.
I do have a problem is that moneys is being pissed way in HE.
There needs to be some comeback on courses and unis that generate tax revenue.
The UK is not in a good place, financially. It cannot piss money away like it is in HE.
Watching someone's daughter at UNI at the moment.
Moved from Leicester to London.
Now London is the 'greatest City in the world.' Leicester of course is now 'a dump.'
Certainly she is spending a lot morem than if credit were not available, just stick it on the nations credit card.
Can't for the life of me see how living and working in London will be sustainable, after living on credit in the capital for three years beforehand.
-
Part of our 'perpetual motion' economy based on HPI and commuting. No one can afford a house where the jobs are (mainly London and the SE) so have to commute miles.
Even here in West Yorkshire, people live in Huddersfield where house prices are relatively sane (but probably not for much longer after Osborne fires up his 'Northern Shithouse' project) to commute to Leeds/Manchester were prices are ridiculous.
Its all good for GDP in the end.
-
Think the government is falling into a trap with its war on benefits (for the 'poor' however you may define poor). I've no doubt the benefits for the rich (usually called subsidies) will be maintained.
With a State support diminished or removed completely, people are far more likely to save for a rainy day, which may or may not be a good thing. The State support acting as a surrogate savings system.
A high spending consumer economy does not compute with a non existent welfare one. You've only to look East to find out why.
-
Conclusion: "aim" of current system (crudely caricatured as "capitalism") is not maximising human wellbeing or pleasure, but maximising individuals control of resources.
Spot on +1 Profit as 'rent'
-
I don't see this as a bad thing.
One, they are building new blocks, aimed at students/short stay.
That is a very good thing - ask anyone with the misfortune to live in an area that becomes studentified.
Two, that's more competition, so accommodation costs will fall. And it screws over Rigsby type, which cannot be a bad thing.
The 'Is Uni worth it?' is another question.
+1
Its part of the professionalisation of the private rented sector, things being done properly, not hogging or front running existing supply
-
Why capitalism makes us sick
Quite thought provoking. Wasn't aware that the reason many children are 'sick' is because their parents are stressed.
-
My response is a bit off topic, but was watching The Enforcers on ITV last week. Yet another propaganda show masquarading as entertainment about High Court Enforcement Officers, where their powers are massively exaggerated.
Anyway this bailiff evicted a bunch of squatters/protestors from a shop and we had to put up with the bailiff's political views about recovering the property for the hard working rentiers, and the scorn he had for thise squatters "maybe you want a suit for a job interview" however at the end of all this, the shop was finally put to use and let....as a charity shop.
So why couldn't this unit that had been empty for sometime, have its used changed to residential?
Because no hard working business could ever afford the rent. The business opportunities to pay these levels of rent just don't exist. I've looked into it locally here, in Yorkshire and you'd be paying hundreds of pounds for every person walking casually past the shop.
Only hope is to put a 'Jobcentre' on every street corner, as they seem to be only means of creating (forced) footfall in town centres in these weird times.
-
A young professional (me) was able to buy a house in Abington, Northampton on his own, on 3x salary in 1981
That same house would now need two young professionals, and anyway I believe that house has been turned into two flats. so it would need two young professionals to buy half the house!
I'm sure the economy of Northampton has improved drastically since the 80's to bring this state of affairs. Actually the amount of supply in Northampton has improved massively since then. The town must be twice the size it was then.
Amazing how they have managed have us all bidding against each other with borrowed money
Anyone Know Where The £12Bn Of Welfare Cuts Will Come From?
in House prices and the economy
Posted
I agree and I'm a year off being 60. I really don't feel any different. I've had some thyroid ailments that cleared up and feeling a few more aches (but not pains) but I feel like I've always done really. Certainly don't think I'm anywhere near a candidate for sheltered housing. I'm wondering if there is perhaps too much of it, so they lowered the threshhold?