Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Laughing Gnome

Blue Team Raise The Floor Under Private Rents

Recommended Posts

Except it isn't cheap rents for workers. It's cheap rents for pregenent teenagers, druggies and dole scroungers.

tim

Whether there needs to be a dormitory style accomodation for those who are not pulling their weight isn't the question...

Putting the above in high rents means the tax payer pays more in rent...

=not good.

More social housing. Or at least equalise rents in the private sector until they equal council levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is my defence of privilege and subsidy?

None.

This is an argument i am very happy to lose. My apologies

However, I will make one point. The council house and HB systems are a reaction to the abusiveness of our land market and the implicit subsidy you highlight is in reality a feature of our absurd land markets rather than council housing. To illustrate this, consider that your calculation of the subsidy to a council house tenant would vary widely depending on how abusive our land market became. The logical issue to untangle first is the huge subsidy in the land market, not the removal of council housing or HB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether there needs to be a dormitory style accomodation for those who are not pulling their weight isn't the question...

Quite. The intransigent incompetents need to be stored in the cheapest nastiest accomodation whilst the decent housing is

expanded and freed up for deserving working people.

If council housing ever becomes a cheap and available option for anyone who works and wants it, it will also be possible for

millions more to buy their own homes. Council housing used to benefit the whlole of society, not just the tenants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None.

This is an argument i am very happy to lose. My apologies

However, I will make one point. The council house and HB systems are a reaction to the abusiveness of our land market and the implicit subsidy you highlight is in reality a feature of our absurd land markets rather than council housing. To illustrate this, consider that your calculation of the subsidy to a council house tenant would vary widely depending on how abusive our land market became. The logical issue to untangle first is the huge subsidy in the land market, not the removal of council housing or HB.

It wouldnt matter which order you untangled things. Removing council housing and its associated subsidy, and Housing Benefit, could be done before the imposition of a land tax, to the benefit of society.

I am still struggling though to understand the mechanics of how a land tax would work. Council housing is wrong partly because someone makes a decision about who gets the subsidy, a decision that is often not based on what it should be based on. How do you avoid an incorrect price being put on the value of land?

Going back to Marxian first principles of 'all property is theft', I guess you could just seize all the land for the state, and just auction off all the land to the highest bidder, and take it from there? Might cause a bit of chaos for a while though.

Or is all land rented, and every 10 years, you re-auction the packets of land to the highest bidder? This is troubling as the owner of the land clearly has monopsony power over any buildings on the land, unless you have another set of laws which restrict that power, which are again subject to arbitrary decisions and corruption.

It seems to me that the most practical way of creating a land value tax is re-introduction of the rates? Where the landowner pays the rates, and councils go around guessing the value of the land and the buildings that are sat upon them. I guess an open system, with fully published results on the internet, would be the fairest method. A route to challenge any assessment through open court would be needed too. You would have to brush aside most issues of privacy regarding the assessed value of any parcel of land.

People never liked the rates much. And to work the taxes they would be paying this way would be much higher than the inflation adjusted equivalent under the rates system. Taxes on work and trading would be correspondingly lower.

It would be a pretty radical step mind. Add in a citizens wage and a true laissez faire policy by the government, and it could encourage hard work, self reliance, and enterprise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether there needs to be a dormitory style accomodation for those who are not pulling their weight isn't the question...

Putting the above in high rents means the tax payer pays more in rent...

=not good.

More social housing. Or at least equalise rents in the private sector until they equal council levels.

seeing as you have already vetoed my solution there is no point in discussing this with you

tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None.

This is an argument i am very happy to lose. My apologies

However, I will make one point. The council house and HB systems are a reaction to the abusiveness of our land market and the implicit subsidy you highlight is in reality a feature of our absurd land markets rather than council housing. To illustrate this, consider that your calculation of the subsidy to a council house tenant would vary widely depending on how abusive our land market became. The logical issue to untangle first is the huge subsidy in the land market, not the removal of council housing or HB.

f*ck me backwards +1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wouldnt matter which order you untangled things. Removing council housing and its associated subsidy, and Housing Benefit, could be done before the imposition of a land tax, to the benefit of society.

Council housing and HB etc are reactions to the land market. Removing them before dealing with the land market is roughriding over the political issues that brought them about. Sort the cause out then go after the consequent reactions (which will become easy kills once the reason for them is removed). The only reason i can see for doing it the other way around is that you only intend to attack small subsidies to relatively powerless and then stop.

I am still struggling though to understand the mechanics of how a land tax would work. Council housing is wrong partly because someone makes a decision about who gets the subsidy, a decision that is often not based on what it should be based on.

We all have an equal right to this subsidy

How do you avoid an incorrect price being put on the value of land?

Evaluation can only be done by algorithm and the algorithm is subject to open public scrutiny and objection

An incorrect valuation tends to be somewhat self correcting in that a low valuation will tend to obviously / visibly raise prices and the converse is true for too higher a valuation. This makes it LVT much harder to game covertly than other taxes

In LVT terms, the housing boom we just experienced was a signal of too low taxation falling on land ownership. Of course we didn't have the tools to react at the time.

Going back to Marxian first principles of 'all property is theft', I guess you could just seize all the land for the state, and just auction off all the land to the highest bidder, and take it from there? Might cause a bit of chaos for a while though.

Not neccessary

Or is all land rented, and every 10 years, you re-auction the packets of land to the highest bidder? This is troubling as the owner of the land clearly has monopsony power over any buildings on the land, unless you have another set of laws which restrict that power, which are again subject to arbitrary decisions and corruption.

Not neccessary - The two taxation dangers here; the tax going higher than the land value or falling so low it encourages land speculation are very easily observable in the land market.. So long as the rate stays within these boundaries most of the land problem is removed

It seems to me that the most practical way of creating a land value tax is re-introduction of the rates? Where the landowner pays the rates, and councils go around guessing the value of the land and the buildings that are sat upon them. I guess an open system, with fully published results on the internet, would be the fairest method. A route to challenge any assessment through open court would be needed too.

The difference being that the only taxable value is the land and so there is no direct need to evaluate buildings except perhaps to remove their value taxation.

. You would have to brush aside most issues of privacy regarding the assessed value of any parcel of land.

Is there a privacy issue?. The geometric fact and exchange of land ownership has to be a matter of public record in order to to exist.

People never liked the rates much. And to work the taxes they would be paying this way would be much higher than the inflation adjusted equivalent under the rates system. Taxes on work and trading would be correspondingly lower.

It would be a pretty radical step mind. Add in a citizens wage and a true laissez faire policy by the government, and it could encourage hard work, self reliance, and enterprise.

It would have to be introduced gradually. As it were introduced the amounts government would need to provide services and keep order (think benefits) would dramatically fall. Theoretically, an efficient government should be supportable on land rent alone, because land rent contains the market value of the services the government creates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Add in a citizens wage and a true laissez faire policy by the government, and it could encourage hard work, self reliance, and enterprise.

I can see the introduction of 'Universal Credit' being behind the governments moves.

Imagine a situation where UC replaces HB (etc) and council tenants getting exactly the same benefit (UC) as private tenants. The working private tenant would have to find perhaps 800 Pounds to find from their UC (400 for example?) plus another 400 from wages. A council dweller on the other hand might get have a rent of 350 but still get 400 UC,this would be 'unfair.' So, rents will go up.

What to do as a council tenant? Time for a none to swift exit via RTB (over the next 3 years)followed by life on UC and P-T!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FFS! COUNCIL RENTS ARE NOT SUBSIDISED!

And if tenants want to remain when their circumstances improve, whyever not, if a shortage has not been artificially created that is? Wouldn't be for me, but at least that's one less competitor in the market.

You keep saying this, and I'll continue to ignore it until I see the financial information to back it. Firstly, I doubt social housing is cost neutral; even if it was offering it below the market rate is still a subsidy.

If social housing wasn't a cost then why aren't councils across the country building 1000s of them and charging 1% more than they currently do as a sure fire money making scheme? Probably because they'd have to borrow the money now to build the houses, and given that our government is perpetually in debt pay interest on that debt indefinitely. I'm sure that cost is factored into your assertion that council housing isn't a subsidy... isn't it?

And having succesfull working people on council estates is a welcome stabilising factor.

Then give me £250pm and I'll go live in one :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are council rents subsidised by the taxpayer or not?

If tenants are receiving HB then yes. This is actual money, fairly actual by today's standards anyway!

Possibly poorer councils are receiving money collected from tenants in wealthier areas.

Other than that your moving toward concepts unknown in nature, rather like going into the deepest Amazon jungle and asking the local indians for their land rental, hunting and parking fees. Just tell them that they're being subsidised by taxpayers in Sao Paulo....that should work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Council houses should never be an option, they should be a last resort.

Why should people get inexpensive housing based on circumstances (low pay, child in tow etc.) and then keep it once those circumstances change

Because they'll never change their circumstances if it means they'll lose their home.

It's compounding the 'I can't afford to get a job' argument.

I don't know what the solution is, as getting a home, then being allowed to keep it when your circumstances change is not fair either. You're denying it to a person who needs it mroe than you.

Maybe fixed term? You can have this house and your dole money for 1 year only, after that you have to vacate. Who wants to do that job? Kicking out a down on their luck family 'cause Dad can't get a job in manufacturing so they have to live on the streets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unbeleivable really, that there is all this envy of council tenants!

It is a bit surreal- not so long ago most people on here would rather chew off their own arm than live on a council estate- now suddenly they are seeing this same group as the recipients of unfair largesse.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the argument, the shift in perception speaks volumes of the deep level fear that now permeates the culture- if even the hitherto supposedly demeaning status of 'council tenant' is now seen as something to covet rather than disparage.

The basic lie at the root of this whole thing is the premise that many people in council houses will be in a position to buy privately- I'm sure there are some cases where people have made good but still live on the council estate- just as there are some families with nine kids claiming massive benefits to keep them- but as always these extreme cases are employed to mask the reality that all that is going on here is a process whereby the greed and incompetence of the elites are subsidised by the misery of the poor.

And as we scrabble around for the scraps our lords and masters ensure that we will continue to pay through the nose for the right to exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a bit surreal- not so long ago most people on here would rather chew off their own arm than live on a council estate- now suddenly they are seeing this same group as the recipients of unfair largesse.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the argument, the shift in perception speaks volumes of the deep level fear that now permeates the culture- if even the hitherto supposedly demeaning status of 'council tenant' is now seen as something to covet rather than disparage.

The basic lie at the root of this whole thing is the premise that many people in council houses will be in a position to buy privately- I'm sure there are some cases where people have made good but still live on the council estate- just as there are some families with nine kids claiming massive benefits to keep them- but as always these extreme cases are employed to mask the reality that all that is going on here is a process whereby the greed and incompetence of the elites are subsidised by the misery of the poor.

And as we scrabble around for the scraps our lords and masters ensure that we will continue to pay through the nose for the right to exist.

Yep.

Council tenants have money? They shouldn't be living in council housing!!

Council tenants have no money? The lazy sods should be thrown out and put into hostels!!

Kingdom of the unwell innit!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Council houses should never be an option, they should be a last resort.

Why should people get inexpensive housing based on circumstances (low pay, child in tow etc.) and then keep it once those circumstances change ?

The average person pays no tax on their £10,000 of earnings, then it goes to 25% then 40% are you suggesting that if someone on low pay doesn't pay tax they never should once their earnings rise ?

You really are clueless arnt you? dont you know how an economy works? council homes reduce private rents, no council home increse immigratiom = more expensive homes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Council houses are subsidised. The value of the subsidy is the difference between what the council charge in rent for the property, and what the private sector would charge for the same item.

That's an imputed subsidy (no money changes hands). A much larger imputed subsidy is given to owner-occupiers who pay no tax on their imputed rent. If we're going to remove hidden subsidies for social housing tenants then we should also do so for owner-occupiers by reintroducing Scehdule A Income Tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 259 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • 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.