Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
campervanman

One Nation States Vs Global Corporations

Recommended Posts

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/corporate-tax-breaks_b_3306484.html

global corporations have no allegiance to any country; their only objective is to make as much money as possible -- and play off one country against another to keep their taxes down and subsidies up, thereby shifting more of the tax burden to ordinary people whose wages are already shrinking because companies are playing workers off against each other.

What future for the UK in a world where globals can pick off the weakest and subvert democracy in ways that make Brussels look like a parish council?

Edited by campervanman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/corporate-tax-breaks_b_3306484.html

global corporations have no allegiance to any country; their only objective is to make as much money as possible -- and play off one country against another to keep their taxes down and subsidies up, thereby shifting more of the tax burden to ordinary people whose wages are already shrinking because companies are playing workers off against each other.

What future for the UK in a world where globals can pick off the weakest and subvert democracy in ways that make Brussels look like a parish council?

Argument 28, subsection 7d.

Given the larger countries are more corporatist, primarily due to lack of transparency and accountability - once the lobbyists have gained an unaccountable and untransparent channel of influence, the monolithic status prevents any democratic control from being applicable.

Regardless, if the EU can't do anything about it - what does the article suggest as a working alternative? One world governance?. Which will work for all of a matter of days before it is covertly subverted by those same forces with zero chance of detection and recourse by the citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/corporate-tax-breaks_b_3306484.html

global corporations have no allegiance to any country; their only objective is to make as much money as possible -- and play off one country against another to keep their taxes down and subsidies up, thereby shifting more of the tax burden to ordinary people whose wages are already shrinking because companies are playing workers off against each other.

What future for the UK in a world where globals can pick off the weakest and subvert democracy in ways that make Brussels look like a parish council?

The situation in the UK is very easy to understand. The people of the UK have voted in favour of the current situation through their shopping habits. Governments are choosing whether to take a small percentage of a large tax base or a large percentage of a small tax base.

The inconvenient truth for people like Robert Reich is that there is significant internal migration in the US from states like Ohio, Illinois, Michigan and California (large percentage of a shrinking tax base) to states like Wyoming, Nevada and Texas (small percentage of growing tax bases). The high tax solution has failed within the United States where there are few barriers to mobility. The barriers to mobility are larger across national boundaries but much easier for corporations than individuals.

As I have stated before, taxes become increasingly voluntary the more income a potential taxpayer has. Causing its tax base to choose a different jurisdiction in which to pay its tax is really self defeating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Argument 28, subsection 7d.

Given the larger countries are more corporatist, primarily due to lack of transparency and accountability - once the lobbyists have gained an unaccountable and untransparent channel of influence, the monolithic status prevents any democratic control from being applicable.

Regardless, if the EU can't do anything about it - what does the article suggest as a working alternative? One world governance?. Which will work for all of a matter of days before it is covertly subverted by those same forces with zero chance of detection and recourse by the citizens.

I don't think it's a choice between single nation democracies and world governance but in a world where the big players are going to be the multinationals on one side and the US, Europe and the BRICS on the other then those who bravely go it alone will be cannon fodder. As I've said elsewhere, Europe with natural resources, domestically owned infrastructure and industry and a consumer base of over 500million will be more able to avoid the race to the bottom that those on the outside will be forced to be part of..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/corporate-tax-breaks_b_3306484.html

global corporations have no allegiance to any country; their only objective is to make as much money as possible -- and play off one country against another to keep their taxes down and subsidies up, thereby shifting more of the tax burden to ordinary people whose wages are already shrinking because companies are playing workers off against each other.

What future for the UK in a world where globals can pick off the weakest and subvert democracy in ways that make Brussels look like a parish council?

Remember these companies are run purely for directors bonuses...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why you need to tax sales. Tax access to markets. Tax land. Trying to tax profits is just stupid. Every political party pretends they want to "clamp down" and they do f*ck all. It's gone on for so long, I doubt they really care. They just say it.

Where there's a will, there's a way.

It helps to distract and divert blame and it also fills in a bit of time on the airwaves and in tomorrow's fish and chip wrapping (not even fit for purpose on that these days).

It would also be helpful if local competition (to the global tax avoiders) was encouraged but they're more interested in pumping up house prices "to support the economy" i.e. to help to support the global tax avoiders.

Local competition gets deterred because they don't have the same opportunities to avoid tax and then there's the high property/land prices.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's a choice between single nation democracies and world governance but in a world where the big players are going to be the multinationals on one side and the US, Europe and the BRICS on the other then those who bravely go it alone will be cannon fodder. As I've said elsewhere, Europe with natural resources, domestically owned infrastructure and industry and a consumer base of over 500million will be more able to avoid the race to the bottom that those on the outside will be forced to be part of..

I don't understand your point. You are describing competition.

The idea that the logical conclusion of competition is a "race to the bottom" is completely at odds with observation of reality. If a "race to the bottom" were really the result of competition, we would expect the quality of products offered in the private sector to get ever worse, and inexorably less useful.

Compare, for example, a modern day car, computer, or communication device to an example produced 20 or 30 years ago, if you're not convinced.

A plurality of small tax jurasdictions offering competing rates and services is exactly why the USA, for such a large nation, is so far up the rankings in terms of GDP per capita.

Without competition governments and nation states become sclerotic and corrupt (as would a company or charity without competition). A single homogenous government results in the ruling class directing ever more resources towards themselves and their friends, and lying to themselves and everybody else as it begins to fail (for an example see the fall of the Roman Empire, and the so called "Good Emperors" debasing the currency to pay the military ever greater favour, or today in terms of housing and the ruling class grabbing resources to fix the market because it suits them to do so).

Just because an invdividual or group of individuals claim to work for the government, it doesn't make them any less infirm than other human beings. Governments are not a special entity with respect to everybody else, they are as subject to the failings of the humans beings that work for them too.

In terms of corporations, competing tax and regulatory regimes would ensure that the capture/bribing of one group of legislators would still have to face foreign competition, such that if the corruption in one jurasdiction became too deep, the need to compete with others would mean reform would be impossible to avoid, particularly if people are able to freely move or settle where they wish.

Edited by GradualCringe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's a choice between single nation democracies and world governance but in a world where the big players are going to be the multinationals on one side and the US, Europe and the BRICS on the other then those who bravely go it alone will be cannon fodder. As I've said elsewhere, Europe with natural resources, domestically owned infrastructure and industry and a consumer base of over 500million will be more able to avoid the race to the bottom that those on the outside will be forced to be part of..

Yap - there is another choice zero percent corporation tax, shrink the government 25 - 30% of the GDP (to £400bn, currently total governemnt spending is 50% of the GDP or around £700bn). Corporation tax take is less than 10% of total tax take anyway (£50bn vs £590bn).

It further has scope of around £100bn to cut VAT, NI and income taxes. If we the government also expand the council tax band to bandZ, that might raise perhaps another £20bn or so, leaving a scope of further cut in IC/NI/VAT. The government can also levy a final turnover tax of say 0.1% (though unlike VAT, this adds up through the supply chain).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand your point. You are describing competition.

The idea that the logical conclusion of competition is a "race to the bottom" is completely at odds with observation of reality. If a "race to the bottom" were really the result of competition, we would expect the quality of products offered in the private sector to get ever worse, and inexorably less useful.

Compare, for example, a modern day car, computer, or communication device to an example produced 20 or 30 years ago, if you're not convinced.

Monopolies don't like competition and it is like banks/law profession voting for more competition...... Though monopolies like their supplier to compete in a free market...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Monopolies don't like competition and it is like banks/law profession voting for more competition...... Though monopolies like their supplier to compete in a free market...

One of the best ways to end monopolies is for there to be foreign competition from more competitive jurasdictions. A handful of large, homogenous governments work against that.

Edited by GradualCringe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Argument 28, subsection 7d.

Given the larger countries are more corporatist, primarily due to lack of transparency and accountability - once the lobbyists have gained an unaccountable and untransparent channel of influence, the monolithic status prevents any democratic control from being applicable.

Regardless, if the EU can't do anything about it - what does the article suggest as a working alternative? One world governance?. Which will work for all of a matter of days before it is covertly subverted by those same forces with zero chance of detection and recourse by the citizens.

The obvious solution would be one world, no government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand your point. You are describing competition.

The idea that the logical conclusion of competition is a "race to the bottom" is completely at odds with observation of reality. If a "race to the bottom" were really the result of competition, we would expect the quality of products offered in the private sector to get ever worse, and inexorably less useful.

Compare, for example, a modern day car, computer, or communication device to an example produced 20 or 30 years ago, if you're not convinced.

A plurality of small tax jurasdictions offering competing rates and services is exactly why the USA, for such a large nation, is so far up the rankings in terms of GDP per capita.

Without competition governments and nation states become sclerotic and corrupt (as would a company or charity without competition). A single homogenous government results in the ruling class directing ever more resources towards themselves and their friends, and lying to themselves and everybody else as it begins to fail (for an example see the fall of the Roman Empire, and the so called "Good Emperors" debasing the currency to pay the military ever greater favour, or today in terms of housing and the ruling class grabbing resources to fix the market because it suits them to do so).

Just because an invdividual or group of individuals claim to work for the government, it doesn't make them any less infirm than other human beings. Governments are not a special entity with respect to everybody else, they are as subject to the failings of the humans beings that work for them too.

In terms of corporations, competing tax and regulatory regimes would ensure that the capture/bribing of one group of legislators would still have to face foreign competition, such that if the corruption in one jurasdiction became too deep, the need to compete with others would mean reform would be impossible to avoid, particularly if people are able to freely move or settle where they wish.

Scientific advances and technology ensure products are better over time that is a given. The race to the bottom is not about poor quality products being produced as a result of capitalism, it is about capitalism in the form of global companies seeking out those countries who will produce more for less. The UK out of Europe will be in a position to produce more for less but on what basis? If producing more for less is a result of higher productivity and investment in R&D then those involved in producing the stuff might see some benefit in terms of higher living standards but if more for less is a result of trashing the currency and living standards in exchange for inward investment then you become part of the race to the bottom.

Of course it's about being competitive, it's just which route to being competitive is taken. EZ countries are also being forced into producing more for less but it has to be based on higher productivity, they cannot take the UK route.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The idea that the logical conclusion of competition is a "race to the bottom" is completely at odds with observation of reality. If a "race to the bottom" were really the result of competition, we would expect the quality of products offered in the private sector to get ever worse, and inexorably less useful.

But you overlook the fact that in a capitalist system reducing wages and worker rights is a legitimate example of competitive practice- if I can compete with you by lowering wages and working conditions for my staff then I am compelled to do so- if only because if I don't you will and then you will have the competitive advantage.

So there is no logical inconsistency between the idea of competition between companies and a race to the bottom in wages and working conditions.

Where the real logical conundrum appears is in the inability of capitalism to adapt to the reality that wages and demand are the same thing- it persistently tries to eliminate the former while spending vast sums on advertising to stimulate the latter- seemingly unable to process the fact that should it manage to eliminate wages entirely it will also have eliminated demand.

Free market capitalism is the best system ever devised to create wealth- that is beyond question- but it does lead to a rather strange situation in which the entire creative potential of the human race is devoted to making itself redundant- as a species we are engaged in grand project to innovate and invent our way into a position where human labour will be replaced by technology and we will all be surplus to requirements.

So the 'race to the bottom' in wages and conditions is not some aberrant notion that's incompatible with free markets- it's the logical endpoint of the free market system that seeks to minimise cost to maximise profit- The paradox being that human beings are the source of both. We are the labour that drives up cost's of production- and the demand that creates the profits of that production-

The tragi-comedy of Capitalism is this paradox- the more efficient it becomes, the less demand there will be for it's products and services.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tragi-comedy of Capitalism is this paradox- the more efficient it becomes, the less demand there will be for it's products and services.

It is a nice and plausible sounding theory but would you mind giving example of such paradoxes?

For example the more PC becomes more efficient and less people are buying PC or that when the Pad-computer becomes more efficient and cheaper then there is even less demand for them ? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to sell here, you have an office here, every transaction you make here is taxed here via this office.

No office, no sale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Corporations are artificial legal constructs, they only exist because we legally allow them to exist.

I have been saying it many times, we need to abolish the corporate legal entity. Owners of corporations (at least all shareholder that hold more than say 0.1% or the top 100 biggest shareholders) and their directors need to be held personally responsible for the actions of corporations.

Only such a drastic change would turn corporations from their current inherently psychopath behaviour into more responsible entities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand your point. You are describing competition.

The idea that the logical conclusion of competition is a "race to the bottom" is completely at odds with observation of reality. If a "race to the bottom" were really the result of competition, we would expect the quality of products offered in the private sector to get ever worse, and inexorably less useful.

Compare, for example, a modern day car, computer, or communication device to an example produced 20 or 30 years ago, if you're not convinced.

A plurality of small tax jurasdictions offering competing rates and services is exactly why the USA, for such a large nation, is so far up the rankings in terms of GDP per capita.

Without competition governments and nation states become sclerotic and corrupt (as would a company or charity without competition). A single homogenous government results in the ruling class directing ever more resources towards themselves and their friends, and lying to themselves and everybody else as it begins to fail (for an example see the fall of the Roman Empire, and the so called "Good Emperors" debasing the currency to pay the military ever greater favour, or today in terms of housing and the ruling class grabbing resources to fix the market because it suits them to do so).

Just because an invdividual or group of individuals claim to work for the government, it doesn't make them any less infirm than other human beings. Governments are not a special entity with respect to everybody else, they are as subject to the failings of the humans beings that work for them too.

In terms of corporations, competing tax and regulatory regimes would ensure that the capture/bribing of one group of legislators would still have to face foreign competition, such that if the corruption in one jurasdiction became too deep, the need to compete with others would mean reform would be impossible to avoid, particularly if people are able to freely move or settle where they wish.

Wow. What a load of nonsense.

For competitive market forces to operate the most competitive need to "win" and the least competitive need to be able to fail.

So please give me examples of uncompetitive nation states that have failed, and that we can currently see are or are becoming amazing success stories.

I'm sure the brilliant examples of argentina, syria, egypt, russia, etc, will top your list.

Edited by alexw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. What a load of nonsense.

For competitive market forces to operate the most competitive need to "win" and the least competitive need to be able to fail.

So please give me examples of uncompetitive nation states that have failed, and that we can currently see are or are becoming amazing success stories.

I'm sure the brilliant examples of argentina, syria, egypt, russia, etc, will top your list.

How about Greece, Cyprus, Spain, France, Italy, America, Japan and Portugal as examples of states that have failed or are about to fail?

The best examples that I can find of uncompetitive nation states that have failed and have subsequently recovered are Canada, Sweden and Denmark after completely re-adjusting their relationships between rights and responsibilities.

The best examples of states that are unlikely to fail because they have developed a mature relationship between rights and responsibilities are Germany, Korea and Switzerland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is a nice and plausible sounding theory but would you mind giving example of such paradoxes?

For example the more PC becomes more efficient and less people are buying PC or that when the Pad-computer becomes more efficient and cheaper then there is even less demand for them ?

Well I think we can both agree that-in a competitive market- wages are a cost to be eliminated if at all possible- so it's not unfair to point out that the reduction or elimination of wages is a goal of any well run enterprise.

We can also agree-I think- that customers with money to spend are a vital requirement for anyone trying to sell anything- so maximising customer spend is also a goal of any well run enterprise.

So we can accurately say that any well run enterprise will attempt to lower the total wages it pays while at the same time attempt to maximise it's sales by expanding it's customer base.

And this will be the same for all enterprises in the global economy- all will be attempting to cut wages and increase sales.

So taken in aggregate the objectives of every well run enterprise on the planet will be to reduce it's wage costs and maximise it's sales.

Can you spot the problem here? If my wages are your profits then to cut one is to cut the other.

So the more we design ourselves out of the production process the less financial value that process will generate. In a world where production was achieved without wage costs- a totally automated world- the products themselves would generate zero financial value because no one would have the means to buy them.

In the past this contradiction at the heart of Capitalism did not matter- but as our technology improves it begins to matter and will increasingly become a problem- one that the free market does not seem able to address.

Edited by wonderpup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about Greece, Cyprus, Spain, France, Italy, America, Japan and Portugal as examples of states that have failed or are about to fail?

The best examples that I can find of uncompetitive nation states that have failed and have subsequently recovered are Canada, Sweden and Denmark after completely re-adjusting their relationships between rights and responsibilities.

The best examples of states that are unlikely to fail because they have developed a mature relationship between rights and responsibilities are Germany, Korea and Switzerland.

I accept greece and maybe cyprus as examples of failed states. Neither canada, sweden or denmark have failed as states. They have not undergone failure as we would define it for capitalist enterprises. The others, that's for the future.

Now how are these failed states doing in becoming amazingly successful reorganized states? Remember to add in syria, russia, argentina, etc.

(oh another one would be Iceland. Which is a lone example of a state failing and recovering/reorganizing -maybe- successfully.)

Now given this track record you think that the capitalist model of creation through destruction successfully applies to nation states and is something we ought to encourage?

Edited by alexw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But you overlook the fact that in a capitalist system reducing wages and worker rights is a legitimate example of competitive practice- if I can compete with you by lowering wages and working conditions for my staff then I am compelled to do so- if only because if I don't you will and then you will have the competitive advantage.

So there is no logical inconsistency between the idea of competition between companies and a race to the bottom in wages and working conditions.

Where the real logical conundrum appears is in the inability of capitalism to adapt to the reality that wages and demand are the same thing- it persistently tries to eliminate the former while spending vast sums on advertising to stimulate the latter- seemingly unable to process the fact that should it manage to eliminate wages entirely it will also have eliminated demand.

Free market capitalism is the best system ever devised to create wealth- that is beyond question- but it does lead to a rather strange situation in which the entire creative potential of the human race is devoted to making itself redundant- as a species we are engaged in grand project to innovate and invent our way into a position where human labour will be replaced by technology and we will all be surplus to requirements.

So the 'race to the bottom' in wages and conditions is not some aberrant notion that's incompatible with free markets- it's the logical endpoint of the free market system that seeks to minimise cost to maximise profit- The paradox being that human beings are the source of both. We are the labour that drives up cost's of production- and the demand that creates the profits of that production-

The tragi-comedy of Capitalism is this paradox- the more efficient it becomes, the less demand there will be for it's products and services.

I think you are making several assumptions without reference to observation.

Invention and innovation were born out of a drive by human beings to create a surplus so as to avoid having to do tedious, time consuming and dangerous tasks out of necessity to survive i.e. do less work. New methods of production may well stagnate or reduce wages, but they also reduce the cost of everything else.

For example, I invent a fishing net, and can catch 10 times as a many fish as those using a piece string tied to a hook. With a better method of catching fish, I can feed myself, and with the time saved, catch fish for others too. The other people fishing by the old method can stop doing so, one person could plant trees for firewood and building materials, and another person could build and repair shelter. Without the invention, everyone would have had to continue to fish in order to survive, but struggle to provide shelter and warmth (the cost of trying to do so could result in not finding enough food. A better method of catching fish lowers the cost of doing these things), so whilst it may reduce the demand for hooks tied to string and fisherman, the supply of extra fish creates demand for additional shelter and warmth (supply drives demand, without supply there is nothing to exchange).

To say that wages are forever falling to support ever growing spending on advertising, and further that companies are able to continue to spend this money on ever decreasing returns from advertising, are bold claims, I'm assuming you have some numbers to support that? Effectively, you are saying that never ending price bubbles can develop without people ever stopping to question what's occurring, or choosing to eventually use their time and resources more productively.

It is overly simplistic, one dimensional, and erroneous, to assume that the only path to success for businesses within the market system, is to eventually pay their workers nothing. You are also assuming that the loss of one job, due to better efficiency, or automation, does not then realise a need for other positions of employment that were not practical, viable, or even imagined, before efficiency improvements and/or automation, that in turn help to create a better product or service.

Have you not considered that employers are also interested in finding competent employees that are able to adequately perform the role asked of them, earn adequately such that they are not incentivised to steal (years ago I was interviewed for an unskilled role where that point was specifically made by the employer with regard to remuneration), that are healthy, have adequte holiday and working conditions such that the productivity and quality of work does not fall due to ill health and/or exhaustion, or that employee absence due to sickness is not excessive (for small businesses absence is difficult to cover for, and expensive if temporary contractors are required)?

Workers also have bargaining power, given a choice of many thousands of employers, potential employess will try to pick a role that offers the best conditions. An employer offering the most autere condition for their workers is likely to struggle to employ people, or struggle to retain good workers, and of which there are large associated costs in terms of lost productivity, training and recruitment (it is certainly something I've experienced at several companies, where I've known managers and directors to struggle with high turnover of staff).

Have you not also considered the opinion of consumers? Negativity publicity concerncing treatment of workers could well result in a consumer boycott of a company's products. Take for example the treament of the Bryant and May "Match Girls", in addition to the strike, one of the biggest pressures on the company to offer better conditions to their workers was to avoid bad press.

In terms of historical precendent, capitalism (as we know it) as well as automation have been around for around 200 years or so. How can you ignore that quality of life for the masses has steadily improved since then, but at the same time assert that wages can be driven as low as businesses would like them to be?

Before the industrial revolution the lives of the masses were grim, most would have been subsistence farmers tending a small strip of land, their overriding concern and raison d'etre being a decent harvest and where they might find their next meal (take a trip to Buckinghamshire, in some fields you can still see "ridge and furrow" strip patterns within certain fields where peasants would have toiled with plough and ox. Counties were divided into "hundreds" because it was supposed that area of land could only support 100 households).

If your thesis were true, the process of creating new means of production should have driven workers into slavery long ago and we should find ourselves toiling for even less than these people would have expected, at the behest of industrialists making products for no practical purpose perhaps other than for the people to stare at in wonder.

Paradoxically, you are saying that work should exist to create the burden of more work, othewise humans beings become redundant, and at the same time will have to do more work anyway to maintain the same quality of life.

Edited by GradualCringe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. What a load of nonsense.

For competitive market forces to operate the most competitive need to "win" and the least competitive need to be able to fail.

So please give me examples of uncompetitive nation states that have failed, and that we can currently see are or are becoming amazing success stories.

I'm sure the brilliant examples of argentina, syria, egypt, russia, etc, will top your list.

You have a very narrow definition of failure, rather like equating death with your football team losing at the weekend.

Failure could mean in a very limited context, such as the loss of a specific company or industry, a temporary reduction in revenue, or a trade deficit (remember that a state consists of many different organisations and businesses, the failure of one, does not mean the failure of all). Provided that a specific nation state can over time make reforms, it needn't result in abject failure of the state in the sense of Syria and Somalia, having said that legislators do like to kid themselves.

I should also mention, reform can work in favour of both businesses and workers, if a state favours employers over workers too heavily, movement of people could mean that a country could struggle for man power as people emmigrate to a jurasdiction that legislates better conditions for emloyees

Thanks for mentioning Argentina, although I'm not sure how it backs your critique, which before interventionist Peronism was one of the richest nations in the world, and which is locked in decline (in addition to Syria and the former USSR) by a poweful elite that will not allow change, and are the very regimes that I describe as sclerotic, corrupt, and self serving.

Edited by GradualCringe

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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 238 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.