If we vote for Brexit what happens

CLAPTON

Moby wrote: »

I moved to London from Wales 26 years ago and things are generally better in London now than they were when I first arrived. Transport, services are better and Brixton, Tottenham, Edmonton, Wood Green, Islington, Camberwell, (areas I've worked in) are clean now and buzzing. The streets are generally safer as well. I agree finding housing is harder but as I said to my neighbour in relation to their offspring....young people are more flexible and adaptable....there's plenty of cheap housing up North and in Wales. In any event the fact that working class people are being excluded from inner city boroughs is a fault of this awful Govmt's housing policy....which leaves the low income renters at the mercy of Rachman landlords and has changed the housing benefit rules to make renting harder for the young.

by things being better in London compared to 26 years ago, do you mean it is generally easier for young couples to live in family sized house so they can start a family or are you saying there are more coffee bars and restaurants?

26 year ago is 1990
as I remember between 1990 to 1997 there was a tory government
between 1997 and 2010 ther was a labour government
between 2010 and 2015 there was a coalition
and now we have a tory government
which are you blaming for a shortage of housing compared to the demand ?

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

by things being better in London compared to 26 years ago, do you mean it is generally easier for young couples to live in family sized house so they can start a family or are you saying there are more coffee bars and restaurants?

26 year ago is 1990
as I remember between 1990 to 1997 there was a tory government
between 1997 and 2010 ther was a labour government
between 2010 and 2015 there was a coalition
and now we have a tory government
which are you blaming for a shortage of housing compared to the demand ?

I think the situation is the fault of all parties. All the time we were building more houses to match the increasing demand, affordability was not an issue. The decline in house building and rise in owner occupation started to push prices upwards. This was not helped by Thatcher Government selling off social housing without replacing it but the problem was growing in the early 1970s. Since then Governments have simply not built enough houses to satisfy demand resulting in rising prices. The demand came from many causes including immigration, taxation policies that encouraged investment in residential properties and the aspirations of couples to set up their own homes earlier. But the problem is still due to not satisfying demand over a long period.

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

I think the situation is the fault of all parties. All the time we were building more houses to match the increasing demand, affordability was not an issue. The decline in house building and rise in owner occupation started to push prices upwards. This was not helped by Thatcher Government selling off social housing without replacing it but the problem was growing in the early 1970s. Since then Governments have simply not built enough houses to satisfy demand resulting in rising prices. The demand came from many causes including immigration, taxation policies that encouraged investment in residential properties and the aspirations of couples to set up their own homes earlier. But the problem is still due to not satisfying demand over a long period.

so demand isn't really a significant issue?
there are 8-9 million foreign born people in the UK but you don't think that is really a very significnat issue?
you presumably think the government over the last 25 years should have increased taxation to pay for the housing to satisfy the demand?
Imkigration has made the young poorer and reduced their quality and availability of housing

selling council housing didn't reduce the volume of housing : instead of a young teacher, junior doctor, utility worker, nurse etc you would have preferred an unemployed person tolive in the same property and claimed that was better?

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

so demand isn't really a significant issue?
there are 8-9 million foreign born people in the UK but you don't think that is really a very significnat issue?
you presumably think the government over the last 25 years should have increased taxation to pay for the housing to satisfy the demand?
Imkigration has made the young poorer and reduced their quality and availability of housing

selling council housing didn't reduce the volume of housing : instead of a young teacher, junior doctor, utility worker, nurse etc you would have preferred an unemployed person tolive in the same property and claimed that was better?

Demand is the cause of rising prices (or rather unsatisfied demand).

Governments may be satisfied that prices rise. But if not they should create the climate that enables the demand to be satisfied.

If we allow immigration which generates tax revenue then it should be spent on meeting demand for services. If we use taxable benefits to subsidise private housing we can afford to use tax to provide more housing. If we decide to use private housing to accommodate those who need social housing we should not allow benefits to be used to subsidise high rents.

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

Demand is the cause of rising prices (or rather unsatisfied demand).

Governments may be satisfied that prices rise. But if not they should create the climate that enables the demand to be satisfied.

If we allow immigration which generates tax revenue then it should be spent on meeting demand for services. If we use taxable benefits to subsidise private housing we can afford to use tax to provide more housing. If we decide to use private housing to accommodate those who need social housing we should not allow benefits to be used to subsidise high rents.

as of today, the taxpayer has a budget deficit (i.e. we are spending more on government services than we are collectingthe tax revenue).
so if the government is to spend more on providing for the increase in population we will either need to increases taxes , increase borrowing or cut other government spending. Stopping/reducing immigration will reduce further housing / infrasructure demand but won't do much for the current situation.
Clearly the housing benefit system has fueled prices, I'm totally in favour of strict rent cap of taxpayer funded rent, changes to the planning system, increase in taxation to fund the present level of need due to previous immigration and stopping/reducing future immigration until at least 2 million new houses have been built.

CKhalvashi

wotsthat wrote: »

Many are implying that the sale of UK companies is unmitigated good news. Maybe you should start correcting them instead of arguing about the relative rates of business creation and sale.

I've argued the point several times with numerous people that it's not ultimately good for the UK, as it will mean there is more money leaving the country long term than coming in.

I'm on a target of 2 new contracts a week in 2017, with a total of 90 across the year.

That's some serious cash, especially in relation to where we are now, and it's money that will be looked seriously at being invested elsewhere.

So, Brexiteers, you know roughly what my business does, so tell me what I should do, which countries the work should go and why.

Oh, and have a good Christmas everyone . At least we should remain united on that.

gfplux

More good news
"An Asda spokeswoman said: 'With the Christmas period upon us, it's encouraging to see that families are still seeing growth in their spending power each month'."

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-4073656/The-real-rate-inflation-Prices-essentials-soar-8-year-retail-experts-warn.html

The_Last_Username

gfplux wrote: »

More good news
"An Asda spokeswoman said: 'With the Christmas period upon us, it's encouraging to see that families are still seeing growth in their spending power each month'."

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-4073656/The-real-rate-inflation-Prices-essentials-soar-8-year-retail-experts-warn.html

More speculation, predictions and crystal-ball-gazing eh?
Well if you're going to take that route you could at least do it with style.

So since I see no mention of it, try this:

The Change Britain group said that the option - which it describes as “clean Brexit” - is likely to deliver annual savings of almost £10.4 billion from contributions to the EU budget and £1.2 billion from scrapping “burdensome” regulations, while allowing the UK to forge new trade deals worth £12.3 billion.

The group said its estimate was “very conservative” and that the benefits of withdrawal from the single market and customs union could be as much as £38.6 billion a year.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/clean-brexit_uk_58623d4fe4b0d590e44db7f6

Herzlos

That makes 3 enormous assumptions though:

1. That we'll not be paying any money into the EU.
2. That we'll have less regulations*
3. Trade to the EU is totally unaffected by loss of single market access

i.e. the traditional cake-and-eat-it brexit.


*I know the Tories want less business regulations, but we're still going to have to comply with most of the EU regulations in order to trade with them.

veryintrigued

Anyone without an entrenched polarised view see Charlie Brookers 2016 Wipe?

Made me smile!