Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
R K

Don't Tax London Property! F T Editorial Attacks Piketty...

Recommended Posts

The Economist has a blog on this from a couple of days ago: http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/05/inequality-0

Hopefully they're a bit more relaxed over copyright:

THIS morning, the Financial Times leads with a striking allegation: "Capital in the Twenty-First Century",...is fundamentally flawed thanks to errors in the data backing the book.

Mr Giles's analysis is impressive, and one certainly hopes that further work by Mr Giles, Mr Piketty or others will clarify whether mistakes have been made, how they came to be introduced and what their effects are. Based on the information Mr Giles has provided so far, however, the analysis does not seem to support many of the allegations made by the FT, or the conclusion that the book's argument is wrong.

More at the link.

Edited by Goat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Economist has blog on this from a couple of days ago: http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/05/inequality-0

Thanks.

I started this thread because it is a different and new attack on Picketty in today's FT editorial as opposed to their front page 'splash' on Chris Giles' data 'expose'.

This editorial is effectively using Giles' data anomalies article (referred to in your Economist link above and criticised roundly in WSJ and elsewhere) to argue that there must not be a wealth tax on London property (a specific argument made at the bottom of the OP link article).

What the FT appear to be doing is constructing a case argue against any form of wealth taxes, but specifically London property taxes, which I guess ought not be surprising given their business model of selling advertising space to high end property brokers, as well as all the trinkets your well heeled Russian oligarch/Chinese CP apparatchik, Asian tycoon etc. expects to see when he thumbs through their pink pages.

FT now little more than an upmarket Daily Mail. They're quite brazen with it too.

London property is, as Boris likes to remind everyone, now a global asset class after all. Heaven forfend the super rich should pay tax on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks.

I started this thread because it is a different and new attack on Picketty in today's FT editorial as opposed to their front page 'splash' on Chris Giles' data 'expose'.

This editorial is effectively using Giles' data anomalies article (referred to in your Economist link above and criticised roundly in WSJ and elsewhere) to argue that there must not be a wealth tax on London property (a specific argument made at the bottom of the OP link article).

What the FT appear to be doing is constructing a case argue against any form of wealth taxes, but specifically London property taxes, which I guess ought not be surprising given their business model of selling advertising space to high end property brokers, as well as all the trinkets your well heeled Russian oligarch/Chinese CP apparatchik, Asian tycoon etc. expects to see when he thumbs through their pink pages.

FT now little more than an upmarket Daily Mail. They're quite brazen with it too.

London property is, as Boris likes to remind everyone, now a global asset class after all. Heaven forfend the super rich should pay tax on it.

What's the angle?

Advertisers? Owners? Political?

Readers just seems too simplistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Grauniad has responded to this too, via Paul Mason.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/26/thomas-piketty-economist-ft-attack-rising-inequality-bling

A recurring meme on here...

But the most important question is the future: if Piketty is right then we have to "euthanase" the rentier class all over again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the angle?

Advertisers? Owners? Political?

Readers just seems too simplistic.

Now there's an excellent question.

Probably a happy alignment of all 3. London/New York, Bojo, and the money tree. But someone's decided the knives are out and the gloves are off if you'll forgive me mixing boxing/butchery metaphors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair the article you linked to does propose a strategy for driving out excess rents.

Sure. Increased competition blah blah.....lower barriers to entry....blah blah.....hasn't worked the last 30 years....

Can kicking - anything but the dreaded tax on London property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the most important question is the future: if Piketty is right then we have to "euthanase" the rentier class all over again. Only taxes on current wealth – and an end to opaque "wealth management" trails that end up in Switzerland or Cyprus – will prevent capitalism generating levels of social inequality that destroy it.

That sounds like that would apply to the group of people at the keynote speech on the economy at 1 Commercial Street last September.

1 Commercial Street - a property development building site.

Last September - just as Help to Buy 2 was starting up .

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds like that would apply to the group of people at the keynote speech on the economy at 1 Commercial Street last September.

1 Commercial Street - a property development building site.

Last September - just as Help to Buy 2 was starting up .

Quite right. You don't need wealth management trails to Switzerland and Cyprus to destroy capitalism, left to their own devices Osborne and his chums are more than capable doing it all by themselves. Far from securing the wealth of the rich, by reinflating asset prices to the extent that he has, Osborne has set in train a course of events that will devastate it. But if the UK follows the example of Mexico and Argentina the coming super/hyperinflation will at least lead to a sharp contraction in income inequality. Not much comfort to the bottom quintile reduced to Third World levels of unemployment and poverty, but far from the outcome expected by Piketty. Sadly, its highly unlikely that the UK will collapse in isolation. The consequences of a Second Great Depression will be vastly crueller and more enduring than a simple sovereign debt default.

Edited by zugzwang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More like hasn't been tried for the last 20 years.

Builders are all private companies.

Banks are private companies (the ones that didn't bankrupt themselves)

Money has never been cheaper.

Fact is the 'supply side' ends up in cartels, gouging, TBTF, rentierism, higher prices & market failure.

Not just here, but in US too where land is plentiful.

One might imagine at some point the penny would drop, but apparently not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello! On Page 354 he has a chart of real asset returns from 0AD to 2100 AD.......that data series simply does not exist. One of his two fundamental laws that his squiffy maths is built on can't be a fundamental law as the variables are not independent! So he obviously likes to cook the books. This Piketty chap should of gone into something more lucrative for his "book cooking" like working on a securitisation desk in an investment bank.

I think a conspiracy theory surrounding the FT is a bit far fetched, they are correctly critiquing a flawed piece of economic fiction that has received far too much air time!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm… leftie loons on a forum who have been an embarrassment to themselves on multiple occasions in the past, or, finance journalists working at the financial times… hmmmm….. who to take more seriously…. I tell ya, its a puzzler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm… leftie loons on a forum who have been an embarrassment to themselves on multiple occasions in the past, or, finance journalists working at the financial times… hmmmm….. who to take more seriously…. I tell ya, its a puzzler

Leftie? Oh dear, very inaccurate portrayal of most on HPC.

I believe in personal responsibility, freedom, free markets, people rewarded for their talents and labour (meritocracy) with some support for those who cannot look after themselves.

What I don't believe in is the current corruption, rentierism and cronyism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leftie? Oh dear, very inaccurate portrayal of most on HPC.

I believe in personal responsibility, freedom, free markets, people rewarded for their talents and labour (meritocracy) with some support for those who cannot look after themselves.

What I don't believe in is the current corruption, rentierism and cronyism.

I share your values.

I don't mean you or the vast majority of HPC, I mean the handful banging the same old drum day after day after day. There are actual dyed in the wool socialists here who actually think their time has come. Im not even joking.

I envy your ability to avoid it thus far.

Edited by cybernoid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I share your values.

I don't mean you or the vast majority of HPC, I mean the handful banging the same old drum day after day after day. There are actual dyed in the wool socialists here who actually think their time has come. Im not even joking.

I envy your ability to avoid it thus far.

Whom you are unable to debate with, only pass insults. I don't regard myself as a socialist by the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whom you are unable to debate with, only pass insults. I don't regard myself as a socialist by the way.

I have actually had long conversations on here in threads a while back, they lose and get sulky. You cannot have a rational discussion with an irrational person.

Edited by cybernoid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm… leftie loons on a forum who have been an embarrassment to themselves on multiple occasions in the past, or, finance journalists working at the financial times… hmmmm….. who to take more seriously…. I tell ya, its a puzzler

The world's weakest argument Redux.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The world's weakest argument Redux.

Not all opinions are created equal.

If you have a medical problem do you ask a qualified doctor who makes their living practising medicine or the local drunk for an opinion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not all opinions are created equal.

If you have a medical problem do you ask a qualified doctor who makes their living practising medicine or the local drunk for an opinion?

You're essentially using the "My dad says I'm right and he knows more than you" argument which most children grow out of by the time they're 8 or 9 years old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're essentially using the "My dad says I'm right and he knows more than you" argument which most children grow out of by the time they're 8 or 9 years old.

When aimed at a child thats not a bad argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   220 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.