Brexit, The Economy and House Prices (Part 2)

Rusty_Shackleton

economic wrote: »

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.

What I give to charity is none of your damn business. What a ridiculous thing to keep posting. I could say "i do pay 10% of my income to charity", you would have no idea if I'm telling the truth, and you certainly wouldnt be happy with the answer no matter what it was... Are you then going to demand a copy of my P60, direct debit mandates and bank statements, plus written testimony from homeless people and charity collectors on the high street that I gave what I say I did? What about charitable work in the form of time given, do you require me to work out a monetary value for it?

As for your 'stupid post... stuff in your head' remark, if you'd care to expand on that I'll answer it. You need to be a bit more specific than just saying something is stupid, stupid.

economic

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

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.

a lot of these courses are useless for the economy. many can be self-taught easily. people can of course do whatever course they want, but they should have to pay for it themselves and not be free (ie paid for by the taxpayer). if you have to have free education, then make it free for the useful course like the sciences and medicine.

GreatApe

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

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.

No we couldn't

The reason is we are capped at 100% - the socail housing stock - the need for a certain amount of private rentals for people who absolutely need or want to rent privately for a time due to moving around the country for a new job or as students etc.

So that is 100% - 17% which are social homes - 10% (perhaps as high as 15%) of the stock needed as private rentals so the realistic peak for home ownership is around 70% which is roughly the figure we hit in 2004

So we reached max ownership in 2004, it has since then fallen a few % points primarily due to the recent large wage of migrants that rent privately. There was no other way but down since 2004. What did you expect we would import 3 million immigrants and the day they arrived 70% of them would buy their own home?

The way to increase ownership, if that is what you want, is to stop new migrants arriving and to sell off council homes.

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

already explained above why 100% is impossible, social homes and the need for some private rentals so people can move about and rent while young (eg university)

Also most private renters are temporary before they become owners. for instance If I live to be 80 years old I would have been a private renter for 15% of my life and an owner for 85% of my life. Very few people can be owners for 100% of their life unless they own a house at age 18. So we can not go to zero private renting nor should that be desireable. 15% min should be the aim

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.

Well almost everyone I know is the opposite they own their own homes, also interstingly some people I know own their own homes and also rent a flat in the city so thats another reason why we need some private renting. So whose anecdotal evidence should we accept as data yours or mine?

I would suggest neither and just look at actual data and the 2011 census shows almost 70% of uk born own their own home and most the rest are in social. About 15% are in private rental but just like me they will only be there temporarily

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.

Dementia tax was politically stupid but the idea is reasonable. And yes I would not vote for a part that wanted to lower the IHT level to £400k and would probably lower it again if it had the chance.

At no point have I said LVT is my idea haha, but it is a good idea

If its such a good idea why hasnt any government in the uk gone ahead with it, its not a new idea its been around for a hundred years.

And Like I have said we have two indirect LVTs in the form of business rates and stmap duty

, 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).

You have asked every economist and they have all said its a good idea?

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.

If you are not prepared to do it as an individual why would you be prepared to do it as a collective? let me make a suggestion, you really dont want to give more because well that is obvious you have the capacity this moment to set up a standing order to a charity of your choice but you choose not to do so. What you are doing is trying to gain social points by lying and pretending to be willing when in fact you are not. Get a group of you together and you can all pat yourselves on the back to how good and caring you are all the while not setting up your standing orders to charity.

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.

I am not coasting along I do have standing orders to a charity, why wont you join me?
You must clearly have the spare capacity to give else you could not ask for the government to tax you more

always_sunny

kabayiri wrote: »

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.

Maybe in a very abrupt way perhaps.,The NZ geographical location and proximity to other countries is very different from the UK. Then again, NZ and AU have Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement which is akin to the CTA and FoM...
Ask the Aussies about the Kiwis in Oz!.

gfplux

mrginge wrote: »

When you say 'stoke hatred' do you mean 'print things that you don't agree with?'

As far as I'm aware we have a fairly advanced legal framework in this country, which mean that if anyone starts 'stoking hatred' they can be prosecuted. Equally you as an individual can raise complaints about newspaper articles quite easily and have that complaint independently assessed.

I hope your "advanced legal framework" will be springing into action over this.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-muslim-problem-islamophobia-ira-northern-ireland-racism-fuelling-hatred-a7894691.html

Wait, no legal problems, just condemnation of Nazi type propaganda.
I don't agree with what is said, but I imagine you do.

"Does Britain have a “Muslim Problem”? Trevor Kavanagh, who is a Sun journalist, plainly thinks so. In his latest column he writes: “One day soon, if Philip Hammond and Liam Fox are right, we will be back in charge of immigration. What will we do about The Muslim Problem then?”"

Rinoa

gfplux wrote: »

However 2.37 million EU nationals WORKING in Britain and paying tax and social security is a huge part of Britains economy.

They also consume a huge part of the economy. They need heathcare, school places, council services etc. They also receive tax credits and housing benefit. When the plusses and minuses are balanced out it's difficult to see how we benefit.

GreatApe

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

What I give to charity is none of your damn business. What a ridiculous thing to keep posting. I could say "i do pay 10% of my income to charity", you would have no idea if I'm telling the truth, and you certainly wouldnt be happy with the answer no matter what it was... Are you then going to demand a copy of my P60, direct debit mandates and bank statements, plus written testimony from homeless people and charity collectors on the high street that I gave what I say I did? What about charitable work in the form of time given, do you require me to work out a monetary value for it?

As for your 'stupid post... stuff in your head' remark, if you'd care to expand on that I'll answer it. You need to be a bit more specific than just saying something is stupid, stupid.

Well the government is going to spend that tax on hopefully something good and useful. But charities also do good and useful work and some charities perhaps do it better than the state

Why do you need to state to force you to do this good deed you can start doing it right now by logging into your bank account and setting up a standing order.

I dont see any moral argument to be made by 'I will only be kind if you are forced to be kind along with me' which is your attempted get out by saying you believe in taxation but not in charity certainly not enough to give.

Its so easy to call for more taxes
When the charities ask for donations you turn the other cheek face the rich person and say hey !!!!!! you should be paying more in taxes! :rotfl:

cogito

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

Sorry Cogito, I didn't actually see your post. I know how much you value my opinion :rotfl:, so I'll respond now.

I completely agree with Corbyn in that quote, but frankly, I haven't been reading much on Venezuela and so I don't know what Corbyn has or hasn't said about the situation. The reason I've not read much on Venezuela is because a lot of the discussion has descended into "this is what a Corbyn govt. would turn us into", which is absurd unless you think the similar policies means the Nordic countries are heading that way too. Similarly, I just don't know enough about the country, people and background of the situation to think critically about it.

I do recall something about the government looking for people who flew a police helicopter and used it to attack the government? In which case, I would imagine that criticising both sides (in what sounds like part of a coup) would be consistent with criticising both in NI and Palestine?

Cheers. I value your opinion for the sheer comedy.

You heard about a police helicopter attacting the government but the deaths of over 120 protestors has passed you by completely? Really?

I'm glad you brought up NI and Palestine because your hero is a big fan of both the IRA and Hamas. He's certainly been consistent in supporting them and denouncing their opponents.

Rusty_Shackleton

Greatape, I would be happy to pay more taxes for say, more police, because then I'm less likely to be a victim of crime. I might be happy to pay more for social care because I hope my elderly relatives would be treated well if they needed it etc.

I will grant you it's not entirely altruistic being willing to pay more taxes, and while I can only speak for my own views I suspect its the same for many other socialists:

I believe society is better off when we all pay in according to our ability to pay, and take out according to our needs. None of us choose who we're born to, none of us have absolute control over what will happen in our lives - I hope that society supports me when I'm down, and I'm happy to support others when they're down. As a white, straight, male lower middle class graduate with a relatively good job (and I hope) good career prospects, odds are I will pay in more than I take out, under the current system and that I would like to see (and would vote for)... and that's okay, because I've been incredibly lucky in the grand scheme of things. I don't believe the current system provides an acceptable standard of the things society should provide, and we're certainly a rich enough country to do so.

Your accusation that my belief is to score points socially is genuinely offensive.

GreatApe

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

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.

I have seen graphs for education and voting habits and education and age but surely you have to break the two down because more and more young people gave a 'degree'

So how much of the degree bias is age and how much is a degree?

Oh and It seems the older people get the more likely they are to change from labor to tory. Since people generally dont get dumber as they age they get smarter and gain more life experience something is telling them their youthful left wing ideas was carp

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.

What I know for a fact is one of my pals got into such a course having failed 2 A-Levels and got a D in his 3rd. Clearly the university the couse was just using him as a cash cow.

On the other hand I do not know anyone who got anything less than an A at both A-Levels mathematics and Physics that went onto study Physics at university.

No university should allow in anyone who does not have at least 2 x B grades in A-Levels and properly marked so that only 1/4th of the year are able to get a B or above. At most 1/4th of the population needs to be university educated, perhaps only 1/8th that means at least 50-75% of university places and arguably courses are surplus to requirement