Corbynomics: A Dystopia

ukcarper

gadgetmind wrote: »

That statement is a null class in the class of all classes not members of the given class.

Could you explain as I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

cells

TheNickster wrote: »

Could you breakdown how many full time well paid jobs have been created. How many zhc jobs and how many new self employed.

I dont know, you can probably find such info on the ONS website if you are interested. But I do know the median and mean wages have not been dragged down which suggests the profile of new jobs is similar to the profile of existing jobs. this means the idea that most the new jobs are part time or low paid is fale

I never said they were evil. (you should be careful about kneejerk reaction)

oh they are. they have horns and a tail too most of them

They build what for the market with the money that can buy unlike the majority of who like to buy but cannot afford to. - ie first time buyers who it seems are getting older and older because it takes longer and longer to save for a deposit.

they build for the market that can afford it. whats the point of building for the market that can not afford it? would you open up a car company to try and sell to the people who can only afford £2,000 cars?

people are buying later for multiple reasons. longer in schooling. later marriage. later kids. later inheritances as gran lives a decade longer. etc

You seem far too easily pleased - it could be so much better for us all and not just those who have already made it and have had opportunities laid on a plate for them.

I dont think i am easily pleased. but i know there are at least 150 other countries out there that would kill to be in the position we are in so things dont look as bad as your projected reality.

I am sick and tired of hearing the poor are poor because they are undeserving. It is far more complicated than that.

no one said that.
my own view is that chance and good/bad fortune plays a big part in our lives rather than 'skill'. I also think there would be no rich people without middle people and no middle people without poor people so there is some displacement up and down.

what I believe more than anything else is that society will distribute wealth if it can create more wealth. that means better machines and software. distributing what exists is finite and generally wont work beyond a certain point but technology science and software can make all of humanity very wealthy and even close to god like in our abilities. I hope and look forward to that future rather than a future where the income tax rate is a few point higher to fix all the needs and problems of the world

TheNickster

cells wrote: »

my own view is that chance and good/bad fortune plays a big part in our lives rather than 'skill'. I also think there would be no rich people without middle people and no middle people without poor people so there is some displacement up and down.

what I believe more than anything else is that society will distribute wealth if it can create more wealth. that means better machines and software. distributing what exists is finite and generally wont work beyond a certain point but technology science and software can make all of humanity very wealthy and even close to god like in our abilities. I hope and look forward to that future rather than a future where the income tax rate is a few point higher to fix all the needs and problems of the world

I would not disagree with that but you seem satisfied with the current growth rate whereas I think growth should and could be far greater than the less than half a percent we have at the moment with the right kind of public investment.

As for income tax rates I think there is room for slightly higher rates for the very richest - those that are paid more than £150,000 a year. A wealth tax should also be seriously considered.

I would also introduce a very low rate of income tax for the lowest paid in effect reversing the principle 'no taxation without representation'. In a representative democracy everybody should be taxed as the price of democracy. Tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance should be policed far better than it is now.

The gap between the highest paid and lowest paid is still far too big.

gadgetmind

ukcarper wrote: »

Could you explain as I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

Which makes my point rather nicely. Thanks.

cells

TheNickster wrote: »

I would not disagree with that but you seem satisfied with the current growth rate whereas I think growth should and could be far greater than the less than half a percent we have at the moment with the right kind of public investment.

As for income tax rates I think there is room for slightly higher rates for the very richest - those that are paid more than £150,000 a year. A wealth tax should also be seriously considered.

I would also introduce a very low rate of income tax for the lowest paid in effect reversing the principle 'no taxation without representation'. In a representative democracy everybody should be taxed as the price of democracy. Tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance should be policed far better than it is now.

you cant improve the lives of 'the poor' by which we really mean the 90% by taxing the 10% more. The only way to improve the lot of the 90% is through increased productivity from improved machines and software.

The gap between the highest paid and lowest paid is still far too big.

the problem with that idea is you cant increase the real wages of 'the poor' (the 90%) in real terms. you need to forget about money and think in more basic terms. What you want is for the poor to be able to buy more goods and services with their current level of labor input. That simply isnt possible without higher production and productivity.

BobQ

Robisere wrote: »

..................................

So I am not a fan of the Conservative Party, but what is the alternative? The Labour Party has very few real Socialists left and those are heavily outnumbered by Public Schoolboys and careerists. Corbyn is trying to fight battles that were won and lost decades, even a century, ago. I despair of the Labour Movement, I cannot see it ever returning to power in my lifetime, nor that of my children. This country is becoming a One-Party State by default.

What is the alternative to the Conservatives? A valid question.

I think the problem is that there is not and possibly never will be a sufficient number of voters who support socialism in its purest sense.

There is however a "potential" majority that supports left of centre policies. That is who do not believe in austerity as a weapon to beat the poor, that support fair and just social policies, believe in good economic management, support the NHS as a pubic service, want fair educational opportunity and oppose uncontrolled market forces.

The Labour Party is increasing an intolerant party that wants radical change, idealistic socialism,and cares little for responsible economic management. It is supported by the more radical trade unions (although perhaps not their members). It cares more about principles than it does about having policies that will see it elected.

The direction Corbyn is going will make Labour a fringe party. A moderate party needs to emerge to replace it.

ukcarper

gadgetmind wrote: »

Which makes my point rather nicely. Thanks.

So you think mortgage affordability says all there is about the affordability of housing. To buy a 2 bed house near me with a 10% deposit you would need to be earning £60k the rent would be £950 a month.

BobQ

gadgetmind wrote: »

United Kingdom housing affordability as described by mortgage payments as a percentage of take home pay from 1983 to 2015

You are really defining "instantaneous affordability". Is this not very simplistic?

The individual buyer has to consider affordability in terms of their ability to save a deposit and the likelihood of being able to afford to pay their mortgage for the forseeable future. Also the ability to save a deposit is related to their housing costs for many years before they buy.

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

So you think mortgage affordability says all there is about the affordability of housing. To buy a 2 bed house near me with a 10% deposit you would need to be earning £60k the rent would be £950 a month.

£60k joint income in not particularly spectacular. the sum of the average full time male and female worker is above that figure. of course for a single person its more difficult but do we expect everyone to be in one person households to have 50 million homes for a population of 65 million?

you also discount, ignore, or just dont know about the size and scope of gifted and inherited wealth. I estimate in the region of 100-200 billion annually is inherited or gifted. A good portion which goes into housing and some of it is multiples through a mortgage.


The simple fact is that with about 100,000 sales per month, the market is affordable and there is a clearing price. We may scratch our heads and not fully understand who or why people are paying current prices but they are

cells

BobQ wrote: »

You are really defining "instantaneous affordability". Is this not very simplistic?

The individual buyer has to consider affordability in terms of their ability to save a deposit and the likelihood of being able to afford to pay their mortgage for the forseeable future. Also the ability to save a deposit is related to their housing costs for many years before they buy.

100% LTV mortgages should return, the regulations or policies should allow for this.

but even without them 5% deposit mortgages are available and for much of the country the first time buyer properties are in the £100k sort of region so that's a £5k plus about £1.5k in solicitors.

That is just £6.5k.
Most people can borrow that from family or friends
A lot of people have £6.5k
Even a couple in the lowest paid jobs that is about 3 months joint wages.


property is very affordable in about 3/4ths of the country.
It costs a lot less in interest to buy a first time buyer type property than it does to rent a council flat in the same area
If that is not the definition of affordable what the hell is?