Rents in UK now most expensive in Europe

wotsthat

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Graham,
In your simplified example, your being overly simplistic.

To assume that the 100 people would spend 100% of the money they have is unrealistic.

It's equally plausible to say that they spend £400 and save £100, meaning that only £40,00 is spent with £10,000 saved.

Meanwhile, the single person with the £50,000 reinvests this elsewhere and is more likely to use up a greater percentage if not all of the £50,000.

I certainly would not be keeping £50,000 in the bank when I could make the money work harder elsewhere.

Its probably best not to make any assumptions in either scenario

The really questionable assumption he's made is that somehow poorer people are better for the economy because they spend money quicker than better off people.

mayonnaise

Landofwood wrote: »

What extra money? Instead of Person A (the tenant) spending the "extra" money, Person B (The Landlord) or a person connected to Conpany A (the mortgage lender) spends the money.

It's basic economics Graham.

It's Devonomics.
£500 in a renter's pocket is 'extra money'
£500 in a landlord's pocket is not.
Just accept it or we're off for another 5 pages of forumonics.

Graham_Devon

mayonnaise wrote: »

It's Devonomics.
£500 in a renter's pocket is 'extra money'
£500 in a landlord's pocket is not.
Just accept it or we're off for another 5 pages of forumonics.

It's reality, and you have changed what I was saying. I have only talked about the distribution of money. I've never stated what you state.

We've just been through a period where redistribution of money has passed from a handful of entities to thousands of people.

We've also witnessed the effects of thousands of people receiving money and what they then do with it.

It's called PPI repayments.

These payments have seen money distributed to thousands of people across the UK. What did they do with it? They bought cars, did the house up, paid off debts, went on holidays, spent it in the local economy. As I say, the PPI effect is well documented. All of these sales saw money flow throughout the economy redistributed to thousands more people through the sales of those items.

Would that money have found its way into the economy if it were held by the banks and passed around shareholders and the top brass? Some of it would, but it wouldn't have come close to the effect that distributing the money around the UK populace had.

It seems somewhat bizzare that I'm having to explain this to the apparently "far more intellectual".

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

These payments have seen money distributed to thousands of people across the UK. What did they do with it? They bought cars, did the house up, paid off debts, went on holidays, spent it in the local economy. As I say, the PPI effect is well documented. All of these sales saw money flow throughout the economy redistributed to thousands more people through the sales of those items.

If a renter is paying a landlord then it's a fairly obvious transfer of wealth from poor to rich.

With PPI the same thing happened but it was more subtle. Instead of dividends being paid to rich shareholders the money went to poor people and they rapidly handed it back via their spending. The money sloshed around the system a little longer that's all.

If people spending 100% of their income was good for the economy Bangladesh would be an economic superpower.

Moby

Conrad wrote: »

DREADFUL BRITAIN......

We're told we're the;

Fattest in Europe

Most drunk

Least active

Least productive (in work)

Shortest stay in maternity wards

70% of European card debt

Highest teen pregnancy

Worst literacy and math results

Highest domestic abuse

Highest abortion rate

Greatest inequality

Highest rents

Why then does the world want to come live here?

They don't....most want to go to Germany or Scandanavia those that do want to come here either have friends/family already here, they know they can work in the black economy without paying tax and because English is the most widely spoken language. Besides I don't think a refugee escaping ISIS thinks too much about many of the things you list above.

Moby

JencParker wrote: »

Don't be so ridiculous. Why should businesses have to do any of that when there is a thriving labour black market of immigrants (illegal and legal) who will sleep ten to a room or share a bed and sleep in shifts.

I see this every day in London....hardly any of the gangmasters are prosecuted because the vulnerable are terrified of them but that's the sort of society we presently have! It's an invisible world to those who live their lives protected from such realities of course.;)

toomsie

stator wrote: »

Time for rent controls and building houses. Shame the rich Tories won't do either.

Rent control could mean many landlords would leave an unprofitable market. This will create a shortage. So instead of having a choice of paying expensive rent, you will not be able to rent the in area at all.