Exploitation, Exploitation, Exploitation

westernpromise

CLAPTON wrote: »

I find it difficult to understand why you belittle the reasonable desire of (mainly young) people to live in a family sized property

Because it's not reasonable. It's entitlement.

GunJack

Generali wrote: »

It's grim up north.

no it isn't, we've done this before.....

Stoke or London? Stoke every time

CLAPTON

westernpromise wrote: »

Because it's not reasonable. It's entitlement.

We had a system that provided these features : of family sized houses, wage increases in real terms : reasonable transport etc etc etc.

The system was changed to allow unlimited immigration that stopped many people benefiting from these.

Many are now poorer because of the levels of immigration.

We now have the opportunity to stop the immigration.

I've no idea what you mean by entitlement in this context.

westernpromise

CLAPTON wrote: »

We had a system that provided these features : of family sized houses, wage increases in real terms : reasonable transport etc etc etc.

No we didn't. We had mortgage rationing, sexist taxation of wives' earnings, and a low level of owner occupation compared to today. Houses were cheap because of the numerous obstacles to buying them.

If you want to bring all those back, or if you want to create the nirvana of 2002 to 2006 where we had constructively uncontrolled lending, GLWT, as the young people say.

The good-old-days policy you'll really struggle with bringing back in, IMHO, will be the pre-1988 one whereby married women have no personal allowance, and all their earnings are taxed at their husbands' marginal rate. As a result mortgage lenders will return to a 3x main salary and 1x second salary lending formula, arrived at originally precisely because a wife's earnings were worth less.

You may then have cheap houses again, but it won't help da yoof, because their house buying budget will fall exactly in proportion.

mwpt

Does anyone know what the YoY compound rate is for rent inflation in London, over, say, 20 years?

If I hazard a guess I'd say maybe 3% or just below. Just curious how far off the mark that would be.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

As every competent economist will tell you, the tax required is determined by the governments policies : the total required will not change because the price of houses falls.
We will substitute one tax for another : the total burden is unchanged although some people may be 'winners ' and some 'losers' just like for any taxes.

I find it difficult to understand why you belittle the reasonable desire of (mainly young) people to live in a family sized property or to increase their real pay or to have no increase in their travel time to work.

It was only a relatively short time ago that stamp duty raised virtually nothing and the sun still shone.

the sun shines on 3rd world countries too but I assume you dont want us to be a third world country?

so you seem to agree taxes lost on property due to lower prices needs to be taxed elsewhere. I think you are looking at a £25 billion a year tax hole from low house prices (stamp duty, inheritence taxes, capital gains taxes and likely also less income tax on landlords BTLs). So where will you raise taxes to cover this £25 billion (or whatever the figure may be)? And the X billions more thanks to more poverty for the old who can no longer sell their London home for £530k and go buy in the midlands for £100k and use the difference to support themselves in retirement and care homes.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

We had a system that provided these features : of family sized houses, wage increases in real terms : reasonable transport etc etc etc.

That funny as everyone I know has bigger better homes and bigger better cars and bigger better wages than they did 30 years ago.




EDIT: Actually that should be most people I know, some of them are worse off but that group has mostly been the divorcees and they got worse off post divorce.

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

the sun shines on 3rd world countries too but I assume you dont want us to be a third world country?

so you seem to agree taxes lost on property due to lower prices needs to be taxed elsewhere. I think you are looking at a £25 billion a year tax hole from low house prices (stamp duty, inheritence taxes, capital gains taxes and likely also less income tax on landlords BTLs). So where will you raise taxes to cover this £25 billion (or whatever the figure may be)? And the X billions more thanks to more poverty for the old who can no longer sell their London home for £530k and go buy in the midlands for £100k and use the difference to support themselves in retirement and care homes.

The total tax take will be exactly the same as now: the distribution of the tax burden is a political decision with limited macro-economic significance.
One wonders how we all managed before the current wave of house price inflation and indeed how people outside the SE manage today.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

The total tax take will be exactly the same as now: the distribution of the tax burden is a political decision with limited macro-economic significance.
One wonders how we all managed before the current wave of house price inflation and indeed how people outside the SE manage today.

The people outside the SE manage thanks to a huge tax take mostly from London.

Also the driving engine of the UK has been London for the last 20 years. Had London grown at the rate of rUK over the last 20 years out economy would be about 10% smaller than it is now which is a massive difference

cells

Also clapton your lower house prices = bigger homes is silly

The housing stock stays the same irrespective of price

What might change is the occupancy density and that really does change very slowly even if we build more or have less immigrants. We are talking about 0.01 persons per year at most.