RTB: Housing Question

Comms69

Brown_Bear wrote: »

I actually agree that the country would run better if more people had secure tenancies (be that council, HA or employer).

Home ownership brings risks of asset seizure (eg care fees, lawsuits etc) and ties up money that would be better invested in companies.

My point is that many who criticize RTB are actually hypocrits, as they come from privileged wealthy backgrounds, where their parent and grandparents owned property and passed it down tax free.

How is that hypocrisy?


Surely you're not suggesting that the state (ie the taxpayer) acts as a parent to those who don't inherit property themselves?


If I choose to buy my child a chocolate bar, you're suggesting you should have a piece of it because no-one gifted you one?

Marvel1

Brown_Bear wrote: »

IMy point is that many who criticize RTB are actually hypocrits, as they come from privileged wealthy backgrounds, where their parent and grandparents owned property and passed it down tax free.

Not me, Dad worked part time and had to retire early due to ill heath and Mum a factory worker.

No property handed down to me.

I don't like RTB, I believe they should be rented to people who need it next.

Brown_Bear

Comms69 wrote: »

How is that hypocrisy?


Surely you're not suggesting that the state (ie the taxpayer) acts as a parent to those who don't inherit property themselves?


If I choose to buy my child a chocolate bar, you're suggesting you should have a piece of it because no-one gifted you one?

I wouldn't use the term 'act as a parent' - because citizens of a country come into land ownership by all sorts of mechanisms - not ONLY inheriting from parents.

How did people in Zimbabwe, Russia or Northern Cyprus acquire the land they currently 'own'?

Or in the USA - who owned the land before the first 'settlers'?

Redistribution and wealth transfer has always occurred.

At the moment, the UK has a system that is skewed towards wealthy individuals owning land and gifting it to others (usually their offspring, but not always).

The tax system favours asset ownership (particularly land and houses etc) over labour and wages (which are heavily taxed).

Brown_Bear

Marvel1 wrote: »

Not me, Dad worked part time and had to retire early due to ill heath and Mum a factory worker.

No property handed down to me.

I don't like RTB, I believe they should be rented to people who need it next.

Well good for you.
I agree, that RTB is not ideal. It causes problems.
But so does unearned asset inflation and inheritance etc.

But another issue is that the large amount of money tied up in UK houses is a massive target for the govt (or courts / lawyers etc) when the next Black Swan hits the UK.

Comms69

Brown_Bear wrote: »

I wouldn't use the term 'act as a parent' - because citizens of a country come into land ownership by all sorts of mechanisms - not ONLY inheriting from parents.

How did people in Zimbabwe, Russia or Northern Cyprus acquire the land they currently 'own'?

Or in the USA - who owned the land before the first 'settlers'?

Redistribution and wealth transfer has always occurred.

At the moment, the UK has a system that is skewed towards wealthy individuals owning land and gifting it to others (usually their offspring, but not always).

The tax system favours asset ownership (particularly land and houses etc) over labour and wages (which are heavily taxed).

Russia, which I am familiar with, is an interesting case

Many acquired it as a result of the collapse of the USSR. The land was already owned by the people- the switch to a capitalist system meant that the state had to abdicate ‘ownership’.

The tax system treats land differently to wages, but the tax isn’t ‘heavy’; especially for the poorer

Brown_Bear

Comms69 wrote: »

Russia, which I am familiar with, is an interesting case

Many acquired it as a result of the collapse of the USSR. The land was already owned by the people- the switch to a capitalist system meant that the state had to abdicate ‘ownership’.

r

Well presumably their was some kind of 'land transfer' from the state to individuals.
I don't know the details of how it was organised.
Maybe it was similar to RTB here in the UK?

I know in Northern Cyprus, any UK citizens buying land or houses can be sued for compensation by the offspring of the original Greek Cypriot owners in the UK courts. (Because the UK govt supports the Greek Cypriot side).

My point is that land ownership is usually just a chance of where and when you were born.
It's not usually due to 'hard work' by an individual - any more than saying the Greek Cypriots in Northern Cyprus lost their houses due to not working hard.

Did the current Duke of Westminster toil in the fields for his land?

Most British people are so brainwashed by the MSM that they don't see the bigger picture.

Comms69

Brown_Bear wrote: »

Well presumably their was some kind of 'land transfer' from the state to individuals.
I don't know the details of how it was organised.
Maybe it was similar to RTB here in the UK?

I know in Northern Cyprus, any UK citizens buying land or houses can be sued for compensation by the offspring of the original Greek Cypriot owners in the UK courts. (Because the UK govt supports the Greek Cypriot side).

My point is that land ownership is usually just a chance of where and when you were born.
It's not usually due to 'hard work' by an individual - any more than saying the Greek Cypriots in Northern Cyprus lost their houses due to not working hard.

Did the current Duke of Westminster toil in the fields for his land?

Most British people are so brainwashed by the MSM that they don't see the bigger picture.

It’s not RTB; as no one owned any property as such; the state owned everything prior to 91.

Did you took the fields? What you seem to suggest is that it should be illegal to pass on land to heirs?

Brown_Bear

Comms69 wrote: »

It’s

What you seem to suggest is that it should be illegal to pass on land to heirs?

Well that would be a similar rule to council tenants. They can't ALWAYS hand their tenancies down (sometimes they can).

But it would be a pointless law - as someone could just sell before they die and hand over the cash to their son etc. Much easier for the govt to just reduce the IHT threshold or introduce a property owners tax etc. I think that's a more realistic possibility.

But I think there is also a chance that a debt jubilee could see mortgages and student loans etc written off. (Inflation without interest rate rises would do this slowly anyway).

RTB was introduced as a limited type of wealth transfer (from the state to the working class). Income taxes and VAT are constantly transferring wealth back to the state in the other direction - with much less controversy (strangely).

I think the next such wealth transfer will be a currency collapse or debt jubilee.

LocoLoco

Marvel1 wrote: »

Not me, Dad worked part time and had to retire early due to ill heath and Mum a factory worker.

No property handed down to me.

I don't like RTB, I believe they should be rented to people who need it next.

Same here, raised on a council estate, my parents and all of my friends parents bought their council houses. They've all made an absolute killing through RTB - brilliant for them, but I'd lay money that most of the people who bought their houses that way thirty odd years ago wouldn't have done it if they'd known that it would mean their grandchildren wouldn't be able to afford to even rent in that area, let alone buy a place.


Personally I don't believe that everyone has a right to own a home; I do believe, however, that everyone has a right to live in one. Which is primarily why I don't agree with RTB - it's created terrible inequality by pumping huge amounts of unearned cash into the housing market whilst simultaneously removing thousands of affordable homes from the market. I've no issue at all with anyone making money but I don't believe that should mean someone else's basic needs not being met.


So another one here who isn't from a wealthy background and who won't be receiving a big inheritance from their parents (although in my case it's because I don't have anything to do with them, not because they haven't got money to leave). It's got nothing to do with class or who inherits what, as far as I'm concerned, it's just another policy that has led to inequality and means another affordable home has gone for good.

Comms69

Brown_Bear wrote: »

Well that would be a similar rule to council tenants. They can't ALWAYS hand their tenancies down (sometimes they can). - There's an obvious difference there though. Council tenants can move into council accommodation at any stage of life. Inheritance is a continuous action

But it would be a pointless law - as someone could just sell before they die and hand over the cash to their son etc. Much easier for the govt to just reduce the IHT threshold or introduce a property owners tax etc. I think that's a more realistic possibility. - If you want to introduce a massive brain drain on the economy

But I think there is also a chance that a debt jubilee could see mortgages and student loans etc written off. (Inflation without interest rate rises would do this slowly anyway). - I cant see it happening.

RTB was introduced as a limited type of wealth transfer (from the state to the working class). Income taxes and VAT are constantly transferring wealth back to the state in the other direction - with much less controversy (strangely). - Well that's because we need to pay for all the hospitals, schools etc.

I think the next such wealth transfer will be a currency collapse or debt jubilee.

You might be right, but I suspect it's more likely that we'll see an increase in tax for the squeezed middle classes.


Perhaps a new rate of 25% on earnings over 30k