Brexit, The Economy and House Prices (Part 2)

GreatApe

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

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.

People are buying homes later primarily because they are starting work later and getting married later. You cant look at 50 years ago when a boy left school age 15 and got married age 22 to today when the boy leaves school age 22 and gets married age 32. Life cycles have shifted almost a decade and so have home ownership rates it would be odd to expect the opposite of everything else to shift but home ownership not to

I don't know where you get this idea that home ownership hasn't fallen much for the brits?

Home ownership has fallen from the absolute peak, how can it go anywhere else but down from an absolute peak?

What I said was a lot of the increase in private renting is down not to the locals but the millions more recent migrants who very disproportionately rent some 75% of recent migrants rent privately.

The 2021 census will show this clearly (the 2011 one does too). We have an ownership rate and a private rental rate. When its broken down to locals and migrants the ownership rate for the locals is higher than the overall ownership rate

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./QUOTE]

People have social circles that are similar to themselves

British people are buying houses much later in life, that's a fact,

Yes. And so what?
I have already said this is down to changes in schooling and marriage
How can people buy their own house at 22 nowadays when a 22 year old is either still in university or has just started work. My grandfather and Grand mother both started work at age 15 and by age 22 they had a combined 14 years of work under their belts. How many years work did you and your wife have at age 22 under your belts?

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).

It is not temporary unless you want to go back to kids starting work age 15 and getting married in their late teens/early20s

You must have quite a wealthy family to be worrying about inheritance tax.

Yes I do but the came from literally nothing and did it mostly the hard way by starting working from age 15-16 getting married early and skimping and saving. Admittedly the last 10 years I was able to help them a lot too. Also they were lucky in that they lived in London and London economy grew much faster than rUK for 20 years so their primary asset went up in value more so than an equivalent family in say the north east.

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

My grand father does have dementia and is in care. His pension state and private pays most of it the rest is topped up by his family. I would much rather this situation than a much higher inheritance tax. Also very few people spend a long time in care, whereas high inheritances taxes (done by moving the threshold down) would hit many many brits

Wait 40 years you will likely find you have a lot of hand me downs in wealth. You will long have forgotten this post and will be voting tory so the left doesn't steel your/your-kids inheritances

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.

You have to be really thick if you believe the labor inheritance tax increases are specific to pay for dementia care. I dont believe you are that thick, in which case you are intentionally fooling people which is worse than being thick. Already the IHT can pay for that multiple times over. The increase in IHT is to simply increase tax because the left hate the idea of the rich, although most of them are no less 'greedy'. Look at the famous tony been while he was crying about the evils of tax planning and avoidance he took steps a decade before his death to reduce his own families IHT bills.

You will probably do the same, you may still be labor in your dying days because that is your religion but you will be a sinner having put your affairs in order to make sure your kids benefit from your decades of work and saving and not the state

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).

Business rates is 100% a land value tax and a HUGE one.
I have to pay more in London for hair cuts and for car maintenance and for my local corner shop purchases and for my solicitor and for pretty much everything because I pay the land value tax that is business rates via all my purchases of goods and services

I think its something like £30 billion a year a HUGE sum of money. Again paid mostly in London and the SE. Most of the smaller busienss in the north pay nothing at all in business rates. Even the larger businesses in the north pay much less than the south. An office in the south might have business rates of £1 million while the same in the north might only be £10k

Stamp duty is a land tax too most the value of a house in in the land not the bricks that make up the house. Yes it is a transaction tax but people HAVE TO transact you cant give birth to a house you have to purchase one and you can not hold onto a house for ever as we are mortal.

Why should we have even more land taxes. also you are not new an innovative its been talked about for 100 years and no labor government has gone further than the stamp duty land tax and the business rates land tax because when they get into power they discover and accept its a stupid idea

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).

A smart person like you can find one of the more efficient ones and set up that direct debit of 10% of your gross income. Do that come back and I will listen to your nonsense of people want to pay more.

In fact I am willing to match your contribution, there you go.

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

Actions speak louder than words

If a young pretty thing approaches you on the street to take a survey and asks questions like, is charity important, should we give more to charity, should the state do more to help the poor and disabled, the answer is yes of course dear those things are important

But go home and the likes of Mr Shackleton are not willing to log into their bank account and set up a direct debt for 10% of their income to give to a charity that would help the poor or disabled or help maintain water pumps not sexy but someone has to do it only not Mr Shackleton

Rusty_Shackleton

economic wrote: »

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.

hahaha the rich, left wing? There are no doubt some exceptions, but really?!

Yet more claims of 'left wing' policies will send the economy off a cliff. Would that be as opposed to the right wing policies such as Brexit and deregulation of banks which have been wonderful for the economy?

GreatApe

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.

Only recently is it true that higher education = more left wing

Primarily because universities and ex polys have expanded not core subjects but B$ ones like courses on advertising, marketing, business studies, animal management, film studies, animation, photography, disability studies, Early year studies, personal training, sports studies, broadcast tele and radio, children and family studies........and the list goes on and on

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

Only recently is it true that higher education = more left wing

Primarily because universities and ex polys have expanded not core subjects but B$ ones like courses on advertising, marketing, business studies, animal management, film studies, animation, photography, disability studies, Early year studies, personal training, sports studies, broadcast tele and radio, children and family studies........and the list goes on and on

even traditional social sciences and humanties like history, english and phsycology teach people to be left wing.

gfplux

Rinoa wrote: »

The number of EU nationals working in the UK hit a record high this month. Any idea why they keep coming if things are so bad?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-latest-eu-citizens-living-uk-record-high-applicants-european-union-a7896151.html

.

Why do they keep coming if things are so bad. Frankly I have no idea.
However 2.37 million EU nationals WORKING in Britain and paying tax and social security is a huge part of Britains economy. Will they still come, will they stay. I suspect not but that is frankly in the hands of the negotiators. The EU nationals working in Britain are putting their faith in a positive outcome. As someone also directly effected I sincerely hope they are right.

Rusty_Shackleton

GreatApe wrote: »

Home ownership has fallen from the absolute peak, how can it go anywhere else but down from an absolute peak?
...
People have social circles that are similar to themselves
...
You have to be really thick if you believe the labor inheritance tax increases are specific to pay for dementia care. I dont believe you are that thick, in which case you are intentionally fooling people which is worse than being thick.
...
You will probably do the same, you may still be labor in your dying days because that is your religion but you will be a sinner having put your affairs in order to make sure your kids benefit from your decades of work and saving and not the state
...
Why should we have even more land taxes. also you are not new an innovative its been talked about for 100 years and no labor government has gone further than the stamp duty land tax and the business rates land tax because when they get into power they discover and accept its a stupid idea
...
But go home and the likes of Mr Shackleton are not willing to log into their bank account and set up a direct debt for 10% of their income to give to a charity that would help the poor or disabled or help maintain water pumps not sexy but someone has to do it only not Mr Shackleton

Okay, I think I'm gonna agree to disagree on a lot of this. Just a few quick thoughts though:

It's only an absolute peak in retrospect and because we're on a decline from that peak. If in the future it drastically changes and home ownership increases and accelerates, we could well have a new, higher peak in the future. Your point about an absolute peak makes so sense, because the only absolute peak possible, as in an upper boundary that can't be surpassed, would be 100% home ownership.

I'm not talking about similar social circles, I'm talking from a perspective of a variety of people I went to school with (in a very deprived area of the south east), to people I knew at university, through my course, lived with in halls, volunteered with, and worked with (very diverse in terms of socioeconomic background and where in the UK they grew up). Granted, this won't be representative in terms of what you'd expect in research, but it gives a pretty good idea when I know a lot of people from many different backgrounds aren't getting on the property ladder.

I wasn't saying IHT would pay more dementia care, I was talking about you not wanting to vote for someone who would increase IHT, but happy to vote for Mays dementia tax. Sorry if I caused confusion there, not intentional.

At no point have I said LVT is my idea haha, but it is a good idea, and is a tax which economists agree is a very good one (primarily because it's almost impossible to dodge and it doesn't tax productivity like income tax, it encourages the productive use of land. Also its highly progressive taxation).

I'm not saying I don't want to pay, I'm saying I'm happy to contribute more through tax on the understanding that we all pay more in tax. Taxation is meant to provide merit goods, it's not my responsibility to pay a small amount while others coast along. Charity is a completely separate matter.

GreatApe

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

hahaha the rich, left wing? There are no doubt some exceptions, but really?!

There are plenty of left wing middle class and rich people, primarily because they inherited their left wing views and use confirmation bias to reinforce them

Yet more claims of 'left wing' policies will send the economy off a cliff. Would that be as opposed to the right wing policies such as Brexit and deregulation of banks which have been wonderful for the economy?

There was no problem with uk banks or bank regulations, I voted against brexit but I would admit it is not certain to be a net negative in the long term it could be a net positive (although if it is i dont think its likely to be a big net positive)

Anyway, we are all arguing about 5% points.
The left could perhaps expand the state by 5% of the economy the right maybe want to shrink it by 5% points. And those would be the hard left and right the more moderate might only be talking about a 2% point swing in either direction.

Personally I think we are at about the right amount of state in the economy so I would not want to see large tax increases or cuts.

economic

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

Okay, I think I'm gonna agree to disagree on a lot of this. Just a few quick thoughts though:

It's only an absolute peak in retrospect and because we're on a decline from that peak. If in the future it drastically changes and home ownership increases and accelerates, we could well have a new, higher peak in the future. Your point about an absolute peak makes so sense, because the only absolute peak possible, as in an upper boundary that can't be surpassed, would be 100% home ownership.

I'm not talking about similar social circles, I'm talking from a perspective of a variety of people I went to school with (in a very deprived area of the south east), to people I knew at university, through my course, lived with in halls, volunteered with, and worked with (very diverse in terms of socioeconomic background and where in the UK they grew up). Granted, this won't be representative in terms of what you'd expect in research, but it gives a pretty good idea when I know a lot of people from many different backgrounds aren't getting on the property ladder.

I wasn't saying IHT would pay more dementia care, I was talking about you not wanting to vote for someone who would increase IHT, but happy to vote for Mays dementia tax. Sorry if I caused confusion there, not intentional.

At no point have I said LVT is my idea haha, but it is a good idea, and is a tax which economists agree is a very good one (primarily because it's almost impossible to dodge and it doesn't tax productivity like income tax, it encourages the productive use of land. Also its highly progressive taxation).

I'm not saying I don't want to pay, I'm saying I'm happy to contribute more through tax on the understanding that we all pay more in tax. Taxation is meant to provide merit goods, it's not my responsibility to pay a small amount while others coast along. Charity is a completely separate matter.

this is such a stupid post. its all just made up stuff in your head. seriously do you even believe yourself?

stop posting nonsense, and do as you say and pay up to some charities if you are true to your word. otherwise you are just talking gibberish.

Rusty_Shackleton

economic wrote: »

even traditional social sciences and humanties like history, english and phsycology teach people to be left wing.

Given that the only correlation is higher education makes people more likely to be left wing, perhaps it's caused by higher levels of education teaching and encouraging people to think critically about the world.

Neither of our points are provable, but I do enjoy it when people deflect with things like 'useless courses'... that might be your opinion, and I would tend to agree perhaps too many people do certain courses (if you believe people should only study a subject for economic gain), but I'd bet you don't know a thing about most of those courses beyond the titles. Just because you don't know/agree what's useful in them, doesn't mean the courses are pointless.

kabayiri

If we are talking about principles...and trying to tie this back to the EU in a (very loose and limited) way.

I have misgivings about our consumption driven society, and I don't think it is the only way. I admit to bias, because I was taught in the idea that high value high tech manufacturing could be an important part of our economy. I am not sure an accountant or solicitor would see the same importance.

I see Brexit as an opportunity to completely re-evaluate where we see the UK going. In essence, this is exactly what New Zealand had to do, when we dumped them for joining the Common Market.

Sadly, the whole Brexit vote was dominated with short termist thinking.