Brexit, The Economy and House Prices (Part 2)

GreatApe

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

That's a very simplistic view that's often held up as fact. I don't have time to get into this can of worms at the moment, but something to highlight my point: the more people pay in tax, the more they're willing to give to charity (Source). Counterintuitive isn't it?

If tax was 100% and so you gained nothing from your work, yes, you wouldn't work. But anything less than 100% means you still benefit to some degree - where the tipping point is, is very much open to debate. I think given that in previous decades we've had higher rates of income tax and have previously been a more productive country, I think there's a lot more to it than just "more tax is bad", contrary to popular opinion, people aren't always overly selfish. Are you inherently selfish? I wouldn't consider myself to be (happy to pay more tax personally), and I don't think the vast majority of people are. The most selfish always seem to be those who have the most... interesting that.

What about people who work hard because they care about a cause (charities), or in the pursuit of knowledge (scientists and academics), or because they love to build things (engineers) - these people often aren't in the highest paid jobs they could get, because there's a lot more to life than money once your basic needs are taken care of.

Scientists and mathematicians and engineers overwhelmingly vote right wing, arguably the smartest and some of the most important people to further humanity. Why might they be doing that?

Productivity has never been higher than today we are at peak productivity now so you are wrong there

Herzlos

GreatApe wrote: »

You are wrong

Not really, I'm just coming from a different class.

For a UK born household say a couple age 30. The man has Two sets of grand parents and the woman has two sets of grand parents. So there is an 80% chance both sets own and a 96% chance at least 1 set of grand parents own. So only 4% of British born with British born parents will not inherit at least half a house.

I'm a UK born couple around 30. My grandparents on one side died nearly 30 years ago with a small amount of money split 3 ways. Other side died about 10 years ago with some small amount of money passed one way (what was left after care homes). No house or massive wealth passed from my grandparents generation to my parents generation. Enough to get a deposit on a mortgage, though.

My parents generation, one side has a 100% equity in a house (will split inheretance between 2), and one side has partial equity in a house (split between 3).

From both of them, we're looking to inherit somewhere around £120k in partial property when we've about retired.

I understand your point that assuming everyone owns, and a perfect 2x2 distribution, everyone will inherit a house i.e. a standard middle class set up. But not everyone owns, not everyone has the perfect distribution, and not everyone will inherit early enough for it to be of much use. I reckon the deviation is a lot further than you're accounting for.

Average inheritance amount is around £95k including property, after taxes. That barely buys you a house up North, and barely a garage in London. So that doesn't fit with your notion that everyone will get a free house at some point in life. Assuming a £500k house as you mentioned, that means just under 1 in 5 will leave one, nevermind get one.

As house prices increase, and people buy later or over longer mortgages, things will skew further away from your view.

Herzlos

GreatApe wrote: »

Scientists and mathematicians and engineers overwhelmingly vote right wing, arguably the smartest and some of the most important people to further humanity. Why might they be doing that?

Do you have a citation for that? Scientists, mathematicians and engineers seem to generally vote left. The vast bulk of those I'm aware of do (and I'm notionally an engineer).

Rusty_Shackleton

GreatApe wrote: »

There is no way at all to draw a conclusion like that. Politics is a hundred variable game not a house price game
...
Also home ownership has not fallen so much for the brits, its been skewed by the large amount of recent migrants who predominantly rent about 75% of them do. Brits typically only rent temporarily before they move onto home ownership or social

Changes in the age makeup of home ownership has widely been attributed. The cons themselves target homeowners (positively) no end, so it would seem they see the point.

I don't know where you get this idea that home ownership hasn't fallen much for the brits? I'm in my late 20's and only just buying a house - I don't know many people my age, including many graduates in good paying jobs, who own or are looking to buy a house, hell I'm helped by living in the northeast with cheaper property than many parts of the country. British people are buying houses much later in life, that's a fact, whether it's temporary is neither here nor there as we're only ever looking at a snapshot of now (for example, come election time).

GreatApe wrote: »

I am somewhat in the middle of the road, same for my family. Have voted left and right in the past. This time I voted tory and so did the rest of my family. Primarily because I highlighted the inheritance tax proposals from dear comrade. No British born over 40 should vote for a party that will massively increase inheritance taxes as the vast majority of brits will gain from inheritances. I did not see much of this policy in the media on the last cycle. Hopefully the tories improve their crap performance and make a big deal of it on the next one.

Grandma isnt going to vote comrade in if she knows/believes that comrade is going to take her house her pension and her savings away from her and her kids and grand kids. Those kids and grand kids should also not vote for comrade if they know whats good for them.

You must have quite a wealthy family to be worrying about inheritance tax. As for this years GE, so you voted for someone who would take a way a considerable proportion of your grandmas wealth if she was unfortunate enough to get dementia, for example. That's an interesting perspective - personally, I would rather know everyone pays a bit of inheritance tax, above what is a very reasonable threshold, rather than gamble and hope (not actually hope, you know what i mean) my relatives die suddenly and before they need care which is guaranteed to siphon off considerable assets once they die.

GreatApe wrote: »

We already have two very large land value taxes. Business rates which is 100% a land value tax and stamp duty which is indirectly a land value tax (Kensington borough pays more of that land value tax than the whole of scotland and wales)

Its so easy to say on an internet forum isnt it? Why dont you just give a lot more to charity, do it now, log into your bank account and set up a direct debt of 10% of your gross income to save the children or the red cross or any other charity of your choosing. That will surely 'better society' there is no need for you to wait for someone to force you to do it. I wont be holding my breath

I'm talking about a land value tax, as proposed by lab, to replace council tax. Not a one off transaction tax like stamp duty. A regular tax based on the value of the land you own (and not just commercial property).

As for your charity comment, I put forward the argument of merit goods. I'm not keen on a lot of charities for their poor financial management and for the fact that the likes of Oxfam tend to pick high profile projects that aren't normally the best use of funds, but are good for marketing (an exception to this is Water Aid, they do an excellent job maintaining water pumps... not sexy, but it has to be done, something a lot of charities forget). The state can be an excellent distributor of funds that are targetted appropriately, for example Sure Start centres have done a fantastic job of improving life chances of those born into less fortunate circumstances, I would gladly contribute towards their costs, but donating to such projects isn't possible. A big problem is that the most effective project often run for decades, charities find it very difficult to be able to maintain such commitments, and again, these are better served by government.

GreatApe wrote: »

bull $ it

You're wrong - there is growing support for tax and spend. "Popular support for higher taxes and increased public spending is stronger than it has been for more than a decade"
https://www.ft.com/content/be1cb526-5b37-11e7-9bc8-8055f264aa8b

Rusty_Shackleton

Herzlos wrote: »

Do you have a citation for that? Scientists, mathematicians and engineers seem to generally vote left. The vast bulk of those I'm aware of do (and I'm notionally an engineer).

Exactly, the correlation between education and voting behaviour is higher levels of education = more left wing. Since these jobs all require higher levels of education, the claim of right wing scientists and mathematicians would seem to be pulled out of thin air.

Herzlos

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

Exactly, the correlation between education and voting behaviour is higher levels of education = more left wing. Since these jobs all require higher levels of education, the claim of right wing scientists and mathematicians would seem to be pulled out of thin air.

I also don't think I can name a prominent scientist that could be regarded as right leaning. Not that I follow many on social media.

lisyloo

Exactly, the correlation between education and voting behaviour is higher levels of education = more left wing.

Isn't it easier to be left leaning if you either quite poor or have excess to your needs?


I was left leaning when I was a student but I had nothing and would only have benefitted and not had to make any personal sacrifices.

economic

yeh if i were to guess:

poor/students etc: left wing as nothing to lose, everything to gain (even though it wont as economy will fall off a cliff)
middleclass: right wing (biggest tax payers dont want to be screwed anymore)
rich: left-wing as they are more likely to structure their wealth to be free of any taxes.

Rusty_Shackleton

lisyloo wrote: »

Isn't it easier to be left leaning if you either quite poor or have excess to your needs?


I was left leaning when I was a student but I had nothing and would only have benefitted and not had to make any personal sacrifices.

Funny I thought the accusation against the left wing is that we're all champagne socialists?

kabayiri

I think you could argue that left leaning principles are easier to sell on the basis of morality / humanity.

The right leaning view suggests that it is implementation which is crucial, bringing a real world pragmatism to matters.

I can remember far more occasions when government policy has disappointed me, rather than delighted me. Over time, you question whether more state intervention is actually working. Is that from a loss of idealism, or pragmatism taking hold?