Corbynomics: A Dystopia

cells

TheNickster wrote: »

Even so it is still unfair. How would you address that unfairness?

Your scheme for social tenants is to a large extent self financing but in the private rented sector housing benefit is a transfer of taxpayers money to private landlords although taxing the landlord may get only a smallish proportion of it back to the government.

this is as nonsense as suggesting tax credits or income support payments are a tesco or farmers milking the taxpayers as that money is spent on buying food

Private landlords pay 40-45% income tax, they also pay stamp duty and capital gains tax. Social landlords pay no tax

A private landlord who buys a house for £100k and charges £600pm and has costs of £100pm will pay £200pm in income tax and have £300pm for themselves. That is after having paid £3000 in stamp duty. If they hold for 10 years and sell for £125k they will also have about £5.6k in capital gains tax

£271 per month in taxes averaged out over the life of the ownership. They received £600pm in rent. The total cost to the state if the home was rented to a HB recipient is thus ~ £330pm a figure lower than most social homes

TrickyTree83

TheNickster wrote: »

It seems to me that your objection is more on a matter of principal rather than that of a major problem given that large families are a very tiny percentage of those on benefits.

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-the-truth-about-the-child-benefits-cap/11739



The following short article details why the Joseph Rowntree Foundation argues why you are wrong:- They are

1) There is no evidence that benefit sanctions deter people from having children and that best way of reducing birth rates is to increase women's education and opportunities in the labour market.

2) It is often unfairly punishing families especially when thay may have formed their families when their incomes were higher and then been pushed into problems through illness, bereavement or redundancy.

3) It does not 'incentivise' people into work because the real barriers to work for parents of large families are childcare costs, juggling arrangements for childcare for children of different ages, lack of flexible and part time jobs, low wages.

4) It is a counter productive way to save money.

and I would add that large families are extremely hard work for parent(s) almost however much the household benefit income is.

I would be interested in a response to each of their arguments.

https://www.jrf.org.uk/blog/should-large-families-face-benefit-sanctions

The question then is do you have a solution that meets your objection but does not replace one 'problem' with another or more problems?

Sorry but that assumes the status quo is the paradigm everyone works under.

If there are large apartment complexes which can be used as 'housing of last resort' then that's what you'll end up in if you are unable to support yourself and/or your family.

Having many children is a personal choice and one that should be made with the utmost care. Setting this kind of focus would bring teenage pregnancy into line with improved parenting due to the consequences of becoming parents, no longer would you be able to 'pop one out and sign on the social register' at the expense of taxpayers for the rest of your life. The state should not be there to support people deciding to have large or small families as a method of employment or housing. It just shouldn't.

If they were pushed into difficulty due to illness, bereavement or redundancy that's what insurance should be for. Life insurance, critical illness cover, unemployment insurance. And if you do not pay for these insurances then you have to accept that you will be housed in emergency accommodation and not necessarily where you want that to be at a minimum cost to the state and taxpayers.

It's a radical shift from what we do now. What we have now is far too soft on people. There is no personal responsibility for the choices people make in life these days.

cells

fafafafafafasadsong wrote: »

At the time of the last census 8.3m houses and flats were rented in the UK. If the Government is going to give all those households a £100,000 grant to buy (ignoring for a moment we will be expecting people to leave their jobs and move to a part of the country where there are fewer jobs and they pay less) then your and TheNickster's policy will cost £830bn. If we just go with your 'unfair' policy the cost will be limited to just £410bn.

Under the 'fair' version of the policy the British Government would add an extra 50% to the national debt in order to transfer social housing to private ownership (or at least it would under a sensible accounting system which the Government doesn't use).

no.

1: The typical RTB loan would be closer to £20k
2: 100% uptake is impossible
3: I suggested a upto £20k government loan to put towards a 5 or 10% down mortgage for private renters.

Assuming a million from the social sector take up the offer to buy their social homes via the RTB and this £20k loan for the remaining bit after the discount. That would be £20 billion. However it would not be a cost or perpetual. A million homes might be sold over the course of say 10 years under this policy during that time some people would have sold and payed back their loan (plus 2% interest). So its a peak of less than £20 billion and once peaked a rapid fall. If most people move within 10 years that means most the £20B would be repaid within 10 years

If a million private renters take up the loan to deposit scheme its again at most a £20 billion and falling loan


Another idea was to allow social tenants their right to buy to be used on any property not just their own rental. So if a tenant has the option of a £100k discount on their london flat then allow them to use it on a house elsewhere eg in stoke instead. there is no gain or loss from this from what is currently offered. It can be funded by sale of the social property they vacate. in london it would be about 2-5x funded over as their £100k discount is covered by sales of properties in the £200-500k sort of mark

cells

fafafafafafasadsong wrote: »

If we just go with your 'unfair' policy the cost will be limited to just £410bn.

If the UK wanted to transfer ~4 million of its ~5 million social stock to private ownership to the ex-tenants it would cost ~£30k a property or about £120 billion. If it sold half of its 0.85 million social stock in London on the open market that would cover the cost. What would remain would be about 0.4 million social homes in London and 0.6 million elsewhere. Private ownership would jump 4 million households. Housing benefit costs would fall substantially and you can free up 4/5ths of the people (and capital eg offices) now working in managing the social stock they can do more productive things for the nation. Their jobs would be replaced by the owner occupiers who will no longer need to ring someone in the council to tell them about the blocked toilet, who will have to ring someone to have them book a plumber who will have to ring a plumber to come out and do the job and will not need a HR department overloooking all this or the cleaner to clean the office all this is based in or a manager to oversee all this to make things as efficient as possible.......


this is likely not to happen mainly because the maybe 100,000 employed up and down the country to manage the social stock wont be too happy about their middle man make work jobs disappearing.

setmefree2

Sam Leith: Jeremy Corbyn hung out to dry with his poor grammar

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/sam-leith-jeremy-corbyn-hung-out-to-dry-with-his-poor-grammar-a3314636.html

setmefree2

Jeremy Corbyn has said he will discuss proposals to reduce the working day to just six hours.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-six-hour-day-workplace-2020-reduce-work-hours-a7177661.html

TheNickster

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Sorry but that assumes the status quo is the paradigm everyone works under.

If there are large apartment complexes which can be used as 'housing of last resort' then that's what you'll end up in if you are unable to support yourself and/or your family.

Having many children is a personal choice and one that should be made with the utmost care. Setting this kind of focus would bring teenage pregnancy into line with improved parenting due to the consequences of becoming parents, no longer would you be able to 'pop one out and sign on the social register' at the expense of taxpayers for the rest of your life. The state should not be there to support people deciding to have large or small families as a method of employment or housing. It just shouldn't.

If they were pushed into difficulty due to illness, bereavement or redundancy that's what insurance should be for. Life insurance, critical illness cover, unemployment insurance. And if you do not pay for these insurances then you have to accept that you will be housed in emergency accommodation and not necessarily where you want that to be at a minimum cost to the state and taxpayers.

It's a radical shift from what we do now. What we have now is far too soft on people. There is no personal responsibility for the choices people make in life these days.

Old News.

"There were about 23 conceptions per 1,000 15 to 17-year-old girls in 2014, compared to a high of 55 in 1971"

This is problem that is decreasing not increasing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-35761826

http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/conceptionandfertilityrates/bulletins/conceptionstatistics/2014


As for the rest of your post we will just have agree to differ because I think your paradigm shift will cause more problems than it solves.

setmefree2

Major boost for Jeremy Corbyn as Labour members win High Court battle over leadership vote

Does this mean Labour have to give the£5 million quid back from the £25 voters?

It comes as senior London MP David Lammy raised growing fears that Labour’s “internecine war” risked splitting the party.
The former minister predicted that Jeremy Corbyn was likely to hang on as Labour leader but many MPs will still refuse to back him.

Ilford South Labour MP Mike Gapes tweeted this morning: “I’m Labour. I belong to a political party not a leadership cult. I have no confidence in Jeremy Corbyn as leader.”
While another senior Labour MP said: “There is a massive disconnect between Jeremy Corbyn and the electorate including a big part of the Labour electorate.”

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/london-mp-david-lammy-labour-s-internecine-war-risks-splitting-the-party-a3314396.html

ukcarper

Thrugelmir wrote: »

First came the oil rich Arabs.

Then the Russians

Now the Chinese.

Not forgetting the French either.

Not many of them where I am but property still much more expensive than Stoke.

westernpromise

setmefree2 wrote: »

Does this mean Labour have to give the£5 million quid back from the £25 voters?

Yes it does.

What Lammy hasn't grasped is that according to polls only about 1/4 of Labour's voters would support a breakaway centrist Labour Party. So if one forms, any seat where Labour is at say 50% and the challenger is at 40% is going to fall to that challenger.

I really do start to wonder if this is game over for Labour. Khorbiyn would probably be quite happy with a hard left party of 70 or 80 MPs that never governs again because he sees no point in a party that does gain power if it's only a centre-left agenda. To him, everyone left of Trotsky is right-wing.