BOE: "Not our job to regulate house prices"

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

I've noticed you have not commented on whether you think 16 years to recoup initial cost is excessive.

I don't approve of state funded housing except for some special cases for reasons already posted.

Where necessary, we should subsidise people and their situation rather than particular housing developments.

I've no particular view as to what the real costs of funding state housing or of the savings in housing benefits and so the actual time to brake even in capital cost terms.
As I made plain, I simply posted up 'guessed' figures (and invited better ones to be posted) plus of course a maths error. I consider a stab at figures better that none as they can be properly challenged (as had happened).

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Pretty much like some large corporates in reality. They may have shareholders and in some cases regulators but still create an intricate web.

Do you really believe that the UK would be a better place if all competition and profit was eliminated and that all services were provided by the state?

Fella

shortchanged wrote: »

I would love all low paid workers one day to walk out of work for a few days and see the consequences. You'd soon see this country come to a grinding halt, yet these people are belittled and demeaned all the time.

Are they? I can't remember the last time I heard a low-paid worker belittled or demeaned.

On the other hand bankers, company directors & higher-rate taxpayers to name just some, get slated all the time.

(It's OK though, they must have done something to deserve it).

Graham_Devon

Fella wrote: »

Are they? I can't remember the last time I heard a low-paid worker belittled or demeaned.

On the other hand bankers, company directors & higher-rate taxpayers to name just some, get slated all the time.

(It's OK though, they must have done something to deserve it).

To be fair, it was happening just yesterday on this very forum, i.e. those doing meanial jobs labelled as "not trying hard enough" or "uneducated".

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

Do you really believe that the UK would be a better place if all competition and profit was eliminated and that all services were provided by the state?

Of course I don't just saying that the transactions of some of our large corporates, who produce key services, are from transparent. No doubt you feel that opaque accounting and aggressive tax avoidance is OK. Who do you think picks up the tab?

Whichever way you cut the cake we pay. Whether that gets paid equitably once we are at the mercy of the market who knows. Possible state inefficiency versus increasing divdend to sharholders matters not to those paying.

Is it better to pay a percentage of your fuel bill, (effectively as a green added tax or pensioner/low paid benefit cold weather tax) irrespective of ability to pay or through a a central taxation system based on ability to pay.

Whether we as a country, in the round, get the services any cheaper is open to question. Whether we get them provided any better or any more efficiently is open to question.

Happy for Apple to fleece customers as I don't have to purchase their products.

wotsthat

ukcarper wrote: »

I've noticed you have not commented on whether you think 16 years to recoup initial cost is excessive.

Here's the plan.

There's a scheme for taxpayers to build a load of houses for people that can't afford to do it for themselves. The taxpayer will take 100% of the risk and the recipients of the houses will take zero. The tenants will pay rent of course but we'll let them off if they can't be bothered to pay it.

In 16 years the taxpayer might recoup the cost but as the tenants have done us the service of living in our asset risk free we'll give them the house (it's only fair).

16 years looks like an awful long time to wait for a maximum 0% return.

We need to look at the reasons why houses aren't/ haven't been built in sufficient quantities. Without dealing with the underlying reasons the costing model is a sideshow.

If housing benefit is such a big worry for people then it could be cut as the economy improves - the resulting increased occupancy rate will allow for a more efficient use of existing stock. If people don't like it then it might provide an incentive for funding it themselves. We could also increase rents for those in social housing that don't need it.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Here's the plan.

In 16 years the taxpayer might recoup the cost but as the tenants have done us the service of living in our asset risk free we'll give them the house (it's only fair).

16 years looks like an awful long time to wait for a maximum 0% return.

Who said anything about giving them the house? That, would be absurd.

Again, for the second time, you appear to be making stuff up to make your argument?

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Of course I don't just saying that the transactions of some of our large corporates, who produce key services, are from transparent. No doubt you feel that opaque accounting and aggressive tax avoidance is OK. Who do you think picks up the tab?

Whichever way you cut the cake we pay. Whether that gets paid equitably once we are at the mercy of the market who knows. Possible state inefficiency versus increasing divdend to sharholders matters not to those paying.

Is it better to pay a percentage of your fuel bill, (effectively as a green added tax or pensioner/low paid benefit cold weather tax) irrespective of ability to pay or through a a central taxation system based on ability to pay.

Whether we as a country, in the round, get the services any cheaper is open to question. Whether we get them provided any better or any more efficiently is open to question.

Happy for Apple to fleece customers as I don't have to purchase their products.

just tell me : without these companies who would pick up the tab?
without these companies who would earn foreign exchange to buy fuel and food we need?


Basically you just love the idea of the state providing everything for you.

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

just tell me : without these companies who would pick up the tab?
without these companies who would earn foreign exchange to buy fuel and food we need?


Basically you just love the idea of the state providing everything for you.

Quote I am not sure how an energy company, for example, supplying an non differentiated commodity to people in this country at full price generate economic income into this country. Mange the outflow and take a cut yes.

I have never said that the state should own and control everything that is just your polarised mind.

It appears that we are quite happy to engage with other state owned and backed companies to take over and run our industry but seem totally incapable of doing anything for ourself, apart from run casino banking operations on our turf. It is almost as though we are becoming the money laundering capital.

ukcarper

wotsthat wrote: »

Here's the plan.

There's a scheme for taxpayers to build a load of houses for people that can't afford to do it for themselves. The taxpayer will take 100% of the risk and the recipients of the houses will take zero. The tenants will pay rent of course but we'll let them off if they can't be bothered to pay it.

In 16 years the taxpayer might recoup the cost but as the tenants have done us the service of living in our asset risk free we'll give them the house (it's only fair).

16 years looks like an awful long time to wait for a maximum 0% return.

We need to look at the reasons why houses aren't/ haven't been built in sufficient quantities. Without dealing with the underlying reasons the costing model is a sideshow.

If housing benefit is such a big worry for people then it could be cut as the economy improves - the resulting increased occupancy rate will allow for a more efficient use of existing stock. If people don't like it then it might provide an incentive for funding it themselves. We could also increase rents for those in social housing that don't need it.

Do you really think it is possible to build enough houses in London and the surrounding area to bring rent down to a level where someone on minimum wage could afford the rent I don't.
Your ans seems to be to force people to share but considering these jobs are needed I don't agree.

I do agree people who can afford to should pay more social housing.