Corbynomics: A Dystopia

gadgetmind

cells wrote: »

invest in what?

Things that will benefit businesses and so create jobs and prosperity, and the investment should be aimed primarily at deprived areas. It's also good if this investment can help people more from the public sector to the private sector.

This is how the European Regional Development Fund works, but it's a trifle heavy on the red tape!

TheNickster

setmefree2 wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/04/corbyn-to-pledge-500bn-of-spending-in-leadership-speech

Terrifying.

Mind you JC and McDonnell can't even get "on message". Same article.

What is terrifying is your simple minded approach to investment and debt.

The private sector has failed disgracefullly to build anywhere near enough houses. Infastructure needs modernising, the private sector has failed to iimprove productivity by not investing in up to date methods. Government investment encourages private investment.

Investment promotes growth, growth means more money in peoples pockets that they spend and promotes more growth, growth means more tax revenues, tax revenues pays off debt. That is how a vibrant economy works.

gadgetmind

TheNickster wrote: »

The private sector has failed disgracefullly to build anywhere near enough houses.

Blocked by Councils, usually.

TheNickster

gadgetmind wrote: »

Blocked by Councils, usually.

how so?

Planning consent might be an issue but that is often dependent on green belt type legisltion and protests from the 'not in my back yard' brigade..

Are you saying that the private sector wanted to build housing that people could afford- ie housing that had affordable rents for those that would not be able to afford to buy?

I assume you agree with the bit of my post you decided not to quote. This bit:-

The private sector has failed disgracefullly to build anywhere near enough houses. Infastructure needs modernising, the private sector has failed to iimprove productivity by not investing in up to date methods. Government investment encourages private investment.

Investment promotes growth, growth means more money in peoples pockets that they spend and promotes more growth, growth means more tax revenues, tax revenues pays off debt. That is how a vibrant economy works.

cells

gadgetmind wrote: »

Blocked by Councils, usually.

a lot of it is the additional taxes on builders above and beyond all the normal taxes.

The Section 106 contributions the Community Infrastructure Levy and the 'affordable housing' contributions all make building homes very expensive in the UK so we don't build lots of new homes.

TrickyTree83

gadgetmind wrote: »

Unfair? It's very fair. Each adult pays the same, exactly the same as for all other goods and services.

See what rugged is proposing distorted perception of fairness.

One person's unfairness is another persons fairness.

So a person can work hard, skill themselves up and end up as a higher rate taxpayer. Some people want to take more and more of their money to re-distribute it amongst the welfare state. To the person who worked hard, that is unfair.

To the person relying on the welfare state for their income it would be unfair to tax the higher earners less (letting them keep the money they earn, CRIMINAL!) as that would in turn mean less income for them, which they would perceive as unfair.

In one situation it's unfair to raise tax, in the other it's unfair to reduce tax.

cells

The private sector has failed disgracefullly to build anywhere near enough houses.

On what basis do you make this claim?
About 75% of the country has very affordable (mortgage interest costs less than renting off the council poor list) homes and a sufficient number of homes. So no I dont accept that the private sector has not built enough homes

Of course the government can overbuild if you want England to be like Germany which has something like 4 million empty homes. It can do this directly itself or indirectly with tax incentives.

There is a problem in London not having enough homes and new housing being costly and that is primarily due to 1: most the space is full so builders have the costly job of buying up existing homes and knocking them down to rebuild more in their place and 2: the greenbelt around London

Infastructure needs modernising, the private sector has failed to iimprove productivity by not investing in up to date methods.

absolute nonsense

Government investment encourages private investment.

investment in what?
does the government have a bunch of world class engineers hidden away in Westminster somewhere ready to unleash their power to improve?

Investment promotes growth, growth means more money in peoples pockets that they spend and promotes more growth, growth means more tax revenues, tax revenues pays off debt. That is how a vibrant economy works.

If the answer was as simple as the government borrowing more money and spending it dont you think there would be no problems and issues anywhere?

The government sets the framework and the private sector tries to allocate the available resources (labor capital materials) in a way to maximize the offering and production of things people want to buy

gadgetmind

TheNickster wrote: »

Planning consent might be an issue

It's a massive issue.

Read this, but do keep reading to the bottom.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/07/number-of-unbuilt-homes-with-planning-permission-hits-record-levels-lga-says

TheNickster

cells wrote: »

On what basis do you make this claim?
About 75% of the country has very affordable (mortgage interest costs less than renting off the council poor list) homes and a sufficient number of homes. So no I dont accept that the private sector has not built enough homes

Of course the government can overbuild if you want England to be like Germany which has something like 4 million empty homes. It can do this directly itself or indirectly with tax incentives.

There is a problem in London not having enough homes and new housing being costly and that is primarily due to 1: most the space is full so builders have the costly job of buying up existing homes and knocking them down to rebuild more in their place and 2: the greenbelt around London

For a substantial number of people rents are only affordable because of housing benefit and they cannot use housing benefit to help buy a home.

If there is enough affordable housing being built why is home ownership falling and not just in London. In Manchester it has fallen from (if memory serves) from 72% down to 59% and in at least 2 other areas away from the SE it has fallen almost as much.

cells wrote: »

investment in what?

How about social housing.

upgrading infrastructure such as roads, railways, sewers, etc. History shows that after a period of Tory governments lack of maintenancefunding has often resulted in a requirement for expensive repairs.

cells wrote: »

If the answer was as simple as the government borrowing more money and spending it dont you think there would be no problems and issues anywhere?

The government sets the framework and the private sector tries to allocate the available resources (labor capital materials) in a way to maximize the offering and production of things people want to buy

The problem here is ideological. Tory governments prefer givaways to the rich who often do not spend it in the British economy but squirrel it away offshore.

gadgetmind

TheNickster wrote: »

The private sector has failed disgracefullly to build anywhere near enough houses.

Already corrected elsewhere.

Infastructure needs modernising

I invest in a lot of infrastructure funds and they'll happily build anything where they can make a decent ongoing income. Vast amounts of private investment has been made as a result. Perhaps not enough, but I've put my hand in my pocket, so if others do the same ...

the private sector has failed to iimprove productivity by not investing in up to date methods.

The usual complaint is that the private sector has thoroughly modernised, which has resulted in a lot of automation with a large drop in the requirement for "wet ware".

Government investment encourages private investment.

I've managed to get some government/ERDF funding on which we had to put in matching investment, and we tried to play by both letter and spirit of this, but the system was both open to abuse and widely abused.

So government investment *can* encourage private investment, but it needs doing correctly.

That is how a vibrant economy works.

Agreed, but many (most?) in government have never started their own business, run a large company (ideally a multi-national one), or even worked in the private sector at all, so are frankly a little bit clueless.

It's very easy to tell the private sector that they should be doing things differently, but slightly harder to prove the point by actually doing it yourself.