Could the UK be the first to raise interest rates?

MFW_ASAP

I think it would be prudent for a small 0.25% rise as mentioned by the CBI recently. I'd also be looking to raise rates this year rather than next. 0.25% isn't going to put anyone out of business but it does signal to people that we are moving out of special measures and beginning the long journey back to where we were before the GFC.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Though if your issue is the selling bit, fine, rent them out. The £10bn provides an income. My point still stands. You get the money back, it doesn't vanish.

Yes, my issue would be on the government building to sell off.
There is a complete lack of social housing so the government needs to build to fulfill this need.

I'm glad you can now agree with me that the government should not build to sell off.

It would be interesting to see how the government figures would add up for building properties and expanding the infrastructure of maintaining leasing these additional properties.

Would it be competitive with the private market or would the costs mean that it would be making a loss (albeit maybe less of a loss than paying housing benefit)

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As an aside, automatically and instantly throwing insults around, suggesting another poster who has disagreed with you is "simple".... well, it kind of backfires... as your insult doesn't add anything to the discussion other than having a go all rather pointlessly.

Graham,
I think you have misread my posts or confused me with another poster.
I have never said that anyone was "simple" in this thread.

• You had proposed the government can build homes for £5Bn, £10Bn, £20Bn
  
• 
  I had questioned how many homes would this achieve and argues that in fact it would need approx £200Bn over a government term to sustain the building needs
• Chucky then made a comment about a "Simple Solution"
• Mike Hunt then asked what his "Simple Solution" was
• You then argued that the governemtn could build £10Bn and sell off £10Bn
• I responded to that and suggest you think a little more about the "Simple Solution"

I really do not think there is any "Simple Solution" and have politely requested that one must consider the wider impact of any proposals being put forward.

I in no way intended to be insulting

System

:laugh: One of the more amusing threads recently.

mayonnaise

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Is this your solution, build and sell at a loss?
This is a loss of £175 million for only 2,800 homes.

In Graham's world, building and selling at a loss = good

HTB which enables countless hardworking families on the property ladder with the added bonus of a possible 4.5 billion profit for the government = bad

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2619432/Help-Buy-scheme-net-government-4-5BILLION-thanks-house-price-boom.html#ixzz30kbgWn00

Bantex_2

mayonnaise wrote: »

In Graham's world, building and selling at a loss = good

HTB which enables countless hardworking families on the property ladder with the added bonus of a possible 4.5 billion profit for the government = bad

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2619432/Help-Buy-scheme-net-government-4-5BILLION-thanks-house-price-boom.html#ixzz30kbgWn00

If that loss is more than offset by saving from other parts of government spending (HB etc) then it could be an overall saving.

wotsthat

Bantex wrote: »

If that loss is more than offset by saving from other parts of government spending (HB etc) then it could be an overall saving.

Potentially cheaper or not why should the taxpayer be directly building houses for otherwise capable adults to live in at subsidised rents?

No wonder government is so big - we're a nation of dependants.

tincans

Can anyone actually answer Grahams point about why the state can't build say 100,000 houses a year, lets say costing £10 bn, without actually insulting and bullying him.

We have done it before in worse economic times (post WW2).
The markets probably wouldn't be worried about the deficit as the real problem is current spending (pension, health, benefits) not investment spending.

Is it simply public bad private good ?

wotsthat

tincans wrote: »

Can anyone actually answer Grahams point about why the state can't build say 100,000 houses a year, lets say costing £10 bn, without actually insulting and bullying him.

For a start the government wouldn't be able to build 100,000 houses for £10bn.

tincans wrote: »

We have done it before in worse economic times (post WW2).
The markets probably wouldn't be worried about the deficit as the real problem is current spending (pension, health, benefits) not investment spending.

The markets would be worried about the deficit because borrowing money to build houses for people incapable of sorting out their own housing needs would be the opposite of an investment. They'd see it as government showing support to a bunch of rent seekers.

tincans wrote: »

Is it simply public bad private good ?

It's a fairy story to believe a UK government can arrange a state building program without it becoming a politicking nightmare.

Bantex_2

wotsthat wrote: »

For a start the government wouldn't be able to build 100,000 houses for £10bn.

That seems to be £100,000 per home. Why could they not do that?