Corbynomics: A Dystopia

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

why is a single adult on far less than the full time median wage entitled to buy what is at £150k a far higher price than average terrace in most of the country?

There are about 50 million adults in the country. Should they all be living one to a house?

I never said they should be entitled to buy I said they should be able to afford accomadation. I'm not sure what your solution is. Yes interest on mortgage might be less than rent but how does that help.

TrickyTree83

ukcarper wrote: »

I never said they should be entitled to buy I said they should be able to afford accomadation. I'm not sure what your solution is. Yes interest on mortgage might be less than rent but how does that help.

Why should they be able to afford to buy in those areas?

Is there some kind of law I'm not aware of?

I get the feeling people think there's some form of misplaced morality in allowing people to buy discounted/cheap housing in rich areas because the poor people are needed for certain services. If the poor weren't lured into such a trap they would have to be paid accordingly in order for these services to exist.

Surely the moral thing to do would be to stop subsidising these practices and by association subsidising the rich in rich areas. Service costs in these areas would therefore increase to make it worthwhile for poorer people to do those jobs. Isn't that more moral?

ukcarper

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

And that's why we have underpaid workers because who doesn't want free housing?

It's a shame that we have ideals of the left so entrenched that we can't actually fix our economic systems for the benefit of all. When you're properly remunerated for the work you do you ought to be able to make a living in that particular area.

So you agree with a living wage which in London would probably be about £50k, then if you paid every body £50k what would that do to prices and what would the people earning £50k say. The only way to lower housing cost is to reduce demand either by building more property or moving people away.

ukcarper

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Why should they be able to afford to buy in those areas?

Is there some kind of law I'm not aware of?

Did you read my post?

cells

Average price of a terrace according to most recent Land Registry and the interest payments on a 90% LTV 2% interest mortgage

N-Ireland £81k = £122 per month
North East £101k = £152 per month
North West £111k = £167 per month
Wales £111k = £167 per month
Y&H £117k = £176 per month
Scotland £119k = £179 per month
E-Midlands £129k = £194 per month
W-Midlands £137k = £206 per month
South West £195k = £293 per month
East England £224k = £336 per month
South East £257k = £386 per month


Compare those average terrace prices to the average rents council tenants pay in England which was £370 for a 2 bed and £410 for a 3 bed. And those council rent figures are for the tax year 2014/15 so actually its likely 5-10% higher now two years later.

People are mad to think house prices are unaffordable when in 87% of the country the average terrace costs less in mortgage interest than it does to rent the council home. When that mortgage is fixed while the social landlord keeps increasing rents above inflation

TrickyTree83

ukcarper wrote: »

So you agree with a living wage which in London would probably be about £50k, then if you paid every body £50k what would that do to prices and what would the people earning £50k say. The only way to lower housing cost is to reduce demand either by building more property or moving people away.

No, absolutely not.

Wages should not be regulated at all.

You know what happens when you get a minimum wage regulation? There's this illusion that it benefits the people who are paid that wage. Then these people find that their money goes just as far as it did before because of the places they buy from increase their prices as a result of having to pay their staff increased wages.

The whole economic system is flawed with government subsidy, in any form, as I said earlier if no one will come to the rich areas to do 'low income work' for anything less than £x then they should be paid £x by the people/businesses in that area. As a result they should be able to afford to live near or in that area of their own volition with no state aid.

You're thinking about solving these issues under the current paradigm.

Why?

Explain to me why that's the best way, how the left haven't !!!!!!ed up the economics of the free market with their regulatory burden and welfare state.

mwpt

ukcarper wrote: »

So you agree with a living wage which in London would probably be about £50k, then if you paid every body £50k what would that do to prices and what would the people earning £50k say. The only way to lower housing cost is to reduce demand either by building more property or moving people away.

The whole system tries to reach equilibrium. Agents decide to move to an area if it is worth it to them. If you throw housing benefit into the mix, suddenly the worth it side of the equation becomes a whole lot more attractive. If you remove housing benefit then perhaps fewer people would move there, housing would fall in price and perhaps wages rise until an equilibrium had been reached again.

In theory, if wages rose, then prices in the local area would rise and businesses might move elsewhere to find cheaper wages.

There doesn't seem to be a need for housing benefit in a system that would self balance without it.

ukcarper

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

No, absolutely not.

Wages should not be regulated at all.

You know what happens when you get a minimum wage regulation? There's this illusion that it benefits the people who are paid that wage. Then these people find that their money goes just as far as it did before because of the places they buy from increase their prices as a result of having to pay their staff increased wages.

The whole economic system is flawed with government subsidy, in any form, as I said earlier if no one will come to the rich areas to do 'low income work' for anything less than £x then they should be paid £x by the people/businesses in that area. As a result they should be able to afford to live near or in that area of their own volition with no state aid.

You're thinking about solving these issues under the current paradigm.

Why?

Explain to me why that's the best way, how the left haven't !!!!!!ed up the economics of the free market with their regulatory burden and welfare state.

But that doesn't happen I do not have the faith in the free economy you do. What happens is conditions for the poor get worse and they have to live in cramped and substandard accommodation . Your far right agenda is just as bad as Corbyns far left. I own my own house but am happy for some people to have subsidised housing to create a better environment

ukcarper

mwpt wrote: »

The whole system tries to reach equilibrium. Agents decide to move to an area if it is worth it to them. If you throw housing benefit into the mix, suddenly the worth it side of the equation becomes a whole lot more attractive. If you remove housing benefit then perhaps fewer people would move there, housing would fall in price and perhaps wages rise until an equilibrium had been reached again.

In theory, if wages rose, then prices in the local area would rise and businesses might move elsewhere to find cheaper wages.

There doesn't seem to be a need for housing benefit in a system that would self balance without it.

That would be OK if there was sufficient housing in the general area if demand exceeds supply the balance won't be reached. I really don't know what the solution is if you could spread demand more evenly around the country that might help failing that more property needs to be built in more expensive areas easier said than done.

TrickyTree83

ukcarper wrote: »

But that doesn't happen I do not have the faith in the free economy you do. What happens is conditions for the poor get worse and they have to live in cramped and substandard accommodation . Your far right agenda is just as bad as Corbyns far left. I own my own house but am happy for some people to have subsidised housing to creat a better environment

I wouldn't call it far right, libertarian is what I'd prefer but how you label me is up to you.

All that housing subsidy does is depress wages, even more so than economic migrants coming in and undercutting domestic workers. Because rich people can pay lower wages for the same services and live in rich areas without paying for the privilege.

It's been proven time and time again in history that free market economics works, true free market economics not the half baked version we're trying to make work. Leftist economies fail, spectacularly, leftist policies cause free market economies to fail. Look at the history of Rome, or any other western empire that falls. When the idea of welfare gets too big, some might say when it exists, it causes these imbalances.

Right now we're in a situation where we're not quite free market and we're not state controlled either, and for some it's not working otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. Rather than scrabbling around for a solution within the current rules we've made for ourselves, why not re-invent the whole system? The Finnish re-invented their entire education system because they were failing, they're now one of the best. Sometimes the current rules aren't the best.

How is that any different from being paid for the quality and amount of work you do correctly without government subsidy. If that means some people choose to live in squalid conditions because they're trying to make it work in an area where they either cannot find work or cannot get paid what they should for that work then they can move to another area until they find their niche.