We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Intervention ... my take on it all....
Comments
-
-
IIRC, Singapore realised the landlords in the private rental sector were behaving like a cartel and nationalised a whole sector of the market.What about owners' property rights? Confiscation of property seems like the start of a very nasty process.
Doesn't seem to have been the start of any kind of slippery slope of nationalising the whole economy.
As regards government subsidies, most house ownership works on a rental basis; some are renting dwellings and others are renting money to eventually secure "ownership" of their dwelling.There is no honour to be had in not knowing a thing that can be known - Danny Baker0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »Sure, one is giving necessary shelter.
The other is subsidising a choice.
So by extension the Government should own cars and farms to provide subsidised output to the poor or is housing the only necessity to be subject to a socialist utopia?0 -
IIRC, Singapore realised the landlords in the private rental sector were behaving like a cartel and nationalised a whole sector of the market.
Doesn't seem to have been the start of any kind of slippery slope of nationalising the whole economy.
As regards government subsidies, most house ownership works on a rental basis; some are renting dwellings and others are renting money to eventually secure "ownership" of their dwelling.
Not according to this seemingly authoritative piece on the subject:
http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_1585_2009-10-26.html
Lots of social housing to solve a problem which the UK doesn't have: shanty towns. No mass Nationalisation that I can see.0 -
Not sure if it was the housing stock or the land that was nationalised. I think the government owns 80% of the lresidential land now. Not sure where the private rental sector's allowed to fit in.Not according to this seemingly authoritative piece on the subject:
http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_1585_2009-10-26.html
Lots of social housing to solve a problem which the UK doesn't have: shanty towns. No mass Nationalisation that I can see.
They seem to regard housing as accommodation not as a speculative investment, and they're suspicious that increasing house prices might just be another version of inflation. Which it is.
Shanty towns weren't a British housing problem. But large numbers of people did live as lodgers (not sure if that's a comparable problem though!)There is no honour to be had in not knowing a thing that can be known - Danny Baker0 -
Not sure if it was the housing stock or the land that was nationalised. I think the government owns 80% of the lresidential land now. Not sure where the private rental sector's allowed to fit in.
They seem to regard housing as accommodation not as a speculative investment, and they're suspicious that increasing house prices might just be another version of inflation. Which it is.
Shanty towns weren't a British housing problem. But large numbers of people did live as lodgers (not sure if that's a comparable problem though!)
From the article it seems like the Government views public housing, like so much else in Singapore, to be used to pork barrel voters into voting for the ruling party.0 -
So by extension the Government should own cars and farms to provide subsidised output to the poor or is housing the only necessity to be subject to a socialist utopia?
I'd argue as the government already go some way to providing public transport, subsidising cars isn't really a good example as again that's a choice.0 -
From the article it seems like the Government views public housing, like so much else in Singapore, to be used to pork barrel voters into voting for the ruling party.
And that is different to policies of any ruling/controlling party anywhere?"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
I don't really understand why the Government subsidizing house purchases is wrong when subsidizing rents is right. Can anyone explain?
My take is that subsidising a purchase is for the tax payer to pay for a persons decision to buy a house, which they ultimately benefit as they then own the asset. Subsidising rent is purely for housing necessity. As has been said earlier it's a choice.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »I'd argue as the government already go some way to providing public transport, subsidising cars isn't really a good example as again that's a choice.
didn't they already try cars? Scrappage?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards