Exploitation, Exploitation, Exploitation

CLAPTON

westernpromise wrote: »

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.

I avoided the use of the word 'buy' and instead talked about the ability of young people with (or planning ) a family living in a family sized house.
I fully support your the general tirade about women's rights, but the reason that young people with a family can't live in a suitable home is because of the large increase in population with a limited increase in supply (mainly London and the SE).
The large increase in population is largely due to immigration with 3 million foreign born living in London.
Changing mortgage arrangements won't create sufficient new homes.

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

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.

You fail to understand both economics or causality.

Jason74

westernpromise wrote: »

Yebbut the people most vociferous about high house prices tend to be would-be buyers. House prices are high because there are lots of would-be buyers. Hence the unaffordability of homes to buyers is the fault of home buyers.

This is not a palatable message, of course. Especially at the Grauniad they're going to need their housing problem to be somebody else's fault, and they're always going to need the solution to be higher taxes (on other people).

In purely economic terms, your first paragraph is of cause largely true. But once we stop looking at things through the British myth that Housing is essentially an economic issue (it is of course first and foremost a social policy one alongside things such as health and education), the problem with that statement becomes clear. I don't think many people would suggest that hospital waiting lists are the fault of sick people, or a lack of school places the fault of children being born. And the same is true of housing.

Once that reality is accepted, then yes, it is the responsibility of government to take steps to address the issue. And yes, that means using funds that come from the tax that you, I , and everyone else who is in a favourable enough position to be able to contribute in that way. There are no easy solutions to this problem, and any of the possible measures have drawbacks. But I think what's clear (and the satire of the video illustrates it well) is that the current system is not working, and the kind of change that can only be driven from Government drive action is required.

CLAPTON

Jason74 wrote: »

In purely economic terms, your first paragraph is of cause largely true. But once we stop looking at things through the British myth that Housing is essentially an economic issue (it is of course first and foremost a social policy one alongside things such as health and education), the problem with that statement becomes clear. I don't think many people would suggest that hospital waiting lists are the fault of sick people, or a lack of school places the fault of children being born. And the same is true of housing.

Once that reality is accepted, then yes, it is the responsibility of government to take steps to address the issue. And yes, that means using funds that come from the tax that you, I , and everyone else who is in a favourable enough position to be able to contribute in that way. There are no easy solutions to this problem, and any of the possible measures have drawbacks. But I think what's clear (and the satire of the video illustrates it well) is that the current system is not working, and the kind of change that can only be driven from Government drive action is required.

yes we need to slow the increase in demand by stopping immigration and build more housing
neither of these are particularly difficult

there is no evidence that government can build either more quickly, cheaper or in greater volumes than the private sector, but of course the public sector do hoard huge amounts of land and control the planning process and these can only be changed by government action.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

yes we need to slow the increase in demand by stopping immigration and build more housing
neither of these are particularly difficult

there is no evidence that government can build either more quickly, cheaper or in greater volumes than the private sector, but of course the public sector do hoard huge amounts of land and control the planning process and these can only be changed by government action.

but we only really have a housing problem in London and to a much lessor extent in parts of the SE. Most the rest of the country is very cheap. Some places the cost of buying a home are much cheaper almost 50% less than a decade ago (Mortgage x interest over its life). In about half the country a couple on min wage can buy the median terrace.

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

but we only really have a housing problem in London and to a much lessor extent in parts of the SE. Most the rest of the country is very cheap. Some places the cost of buying a home are much cheaper almost 50% less than a decade ago (Mortgage x interest over its life). In about half the country a couple on min wage can buy the median terrace.

we have a situation where large scale immigration causes much harm to the people in london and the SE with no significant benefits
and in other parts of the country large scale immigration causes only a little harm and provides no significants benefits

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

we have a situation where large scale immigration causes much harm to the people in london and the SE with no significant benefits
and in other parts of the country large scale immigration causes only a little harm and provides no significants benefits

Apart from all those doctors of course. 26% of NHS doctors are foreign born apparently:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/26/nhs-foreign-nationals-immigration-health-service

N1AK

Generali wrote: »

Obviously not every thread has to be about immigration.

Where did you find an extra milliard people BTW?

I think you know Clapton well enough by now to know that isn't a statement he agrees with I applaud your efforts but sadly fact based arguments will never persuade someone who sees facts as an inconvenient obstacle to their own 'correct' position. You'd expect to see a little contrition from most if they obviously lied, or were sufficiently ignorant, about the worlds population to be out by a billion after all.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

Apart from all those doctors of course. 26% of NHS doctors are foreign born apparently:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/26/nhs-foreign-nationals-immigration-health-service

to provide some essential workers (even 25% of the NHS doctors) does not require large scale immigration.

As some-one with a small amount of economic knowledge, do you accept that 3 million foreigners in London have any effect on the availability, size and price of housing to the UK born people?

Do you think that the number of young well qualified immigrant hold down wages?

Do you think that the abundant workforce discourages businesses to innovate and become more productive.

as always the questions are pure rhetorical and do not require an answer unless you wish to give one.

CLAPTON

N1AK wrote: »

I think you know Clapton well enough by now to know that isn't a statement he agrees with I applaud your efforts but sadly fact based arguments will never persuade someone who sees facts as an inconvenient obstacle to their own 'correct' position. You'd expect to see a little contrition from most if they obviously lied, or were sufficiently ignorant, about the worlds population to be out by a billion after all.

If you have some interesting facts then do provide them.
You could start by telling us what the current best estimate for the worlds population
and even why a inconsequential rounding is considered a 'lie'.