50% house price crash does not = more affordable homes

Herzlos

That assumes they'd be trapped in the gated communities, like Mexico.



If the proles got desperate enough, gates and guards can be overcome too. Plus they'd need to go outside the gates occasionally to get to work or airports or whatever.

westernpromise

We can all imagine Mad Max fantasies.

My point is that 60% of people pay no net income tax at all, yet are the most vociferous in demanding that those who actually do should pay even more.

Presumably this is so they can themselves both continue to pay in nothing and take out more.

This is an interesting take on who's actually being selfish here.

Malthusian

Herzlos wrote: »

If the proles got desperate enough, gates and guards can be overcome too. Plus they'd need to go outside the gates occasionally to get to work or airports or whatever.

You're now talking about a revolution rather than carjackings and burglaries. In the absence of a revolution no prole is going to try to overcome another prole with a machinegun, or hijack an armour-plated car. They will concentrate on their neighbours who offer easier pickings.

Westernpromise would be as much at risk of a revolution in a minarchist zero-tax dystopia as he is now. Revolutions have very little to do with people being desperate. Political revolutions are instigated by the middle-classes who by definition are not desperate.

Herzlos

Not revolution at all - only a few desperate people with nothing to lose.
Though once you get to the point of needing compounds, armed guards* and armoured cars, wouldn't you have just been better off paying tax and having a fairer society?


*You'd have to pay them pretty well to feel safe from them - what's stopping the guards robbing you?

westernpromise wrote: »

My point is that 60% of people pay no net income tax at all, yet are the most vociferous in demanding that those who actually do should pay even more.

Are you excluding the super-rich with their offshore accounts here? The poorest 60% still pay plenty of tax, and don't directly demand anything. The (usually pretty rich) politicians are, and they and their friends also consume/waste a lot of your tax money. I'd be far more annoyed about paying tax for Grayling to waste on a ferry company with no ferries, or Capita, then I would be by keeping people from starving.


And I pay a lot of tax (though probably not as much as you do). I'm squarely in the middle that gets shafted both ways.

Malthusian

Herzlos wrote: »

Not revolution at all - only a few desperate people with nothing to lose.

If there are only a few of them then those few desperate people will rob their slightly less poor neighbours, instead of trying to storm a rich person's gated community with woefully insufficient material and getting shot.

Though once you get to the point of needing compounds, armed guards* and armoured cars, wouldn't you have just been better off paying tax and having a fairer society?

I agree and so does Westernpromise, otherwise he would live in a minarchist dystopia.

*You'd have to pay them pretty well to feel safe from them - what's stopping the guards robbing you?

Same thing that stops the masses from rioting now - not killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Are you excluding the super-rich with their offshore accounts here?

Lots of tax is payable on offshore accounts unless you actually live offshore.

Unless you are indulging in some kind of hyper-Brexiteer Empire fantasy where all foreigners have to pay us tribute because Britain rules the world, or a Corbynist fantasy of closing the borders, there is no practical solution to the problem that foreigners don't have to pay us tax any more than you and I have to pay French or Bermudan tax.

The poorest 60% still pay plenty of tax

Receiving money from the Government and then giving some of it back to the Government is not tax, it's inefficiency. And a job creation scheme for HMRC.

lisyloo

Malthusian wrote: »

Receiving money from the Government and then giving some of it back to the Government is not tax, it's inefficiency. And a job creation scheme for HMRC.

Plenty of those 60% don’t receive anything in benefits.
If your a working couple without children you won’t qualify for anything even in the lowest paid work.

There’s a different between net takers (the bottom 60%) and benefits scrounges.

With a very low unemployment rate there aren’t many benefits scroungers anymore.
For JSA you have to justify your job seeking and with disability payments e.g, PIP the assessments are quite harsh.

We are now almost at full employment and the numbers getting benefits for doing sweet FA are as small as they can be.

Malthusian

lisyloo wrote: »

Plenty of those 60% don’t receive anything in benefits.
If your a working couple without children you won’t qualify for anything even in the lowest paid work.

The "net taxpayers" stat is over people's lifetimes, it's not a snapshot of what people are paying / receiving right this moment. Working couples without children go on to have 2.2 children. Then their remaining student debts get written off. Then they get frail and have hip replacements and lots of medication. Then they go into care. And finally they die, content in the knowledge of a life well lived.

There’s a different between net takers (the bottom 60%) and benefits scrounges.

Absolutely. Nobody is talking about scroungers in this thread. This isn't Discussion Time.

The topic at hand is how we house the millions of people whose earnings are insufficient to support the lifestyle that middle-class media and political folk consider the minimum acceptable standard. "Scroungers" are virtually an irrelevance as they only make up a tiny percentage of that segment.

lisyloo

It’s exactly the sort of debate we should be having in parliament if we weren’t so distracted by brexit.
I think we need a higher tax take as we’ll have increasing elderly care needs in future amongst other things we need e.g. more policing.
How that comes about is a big discussion.
Note I say tax take not tax rates as I do believe that sometimes lower tax rates can result in a high tax take e.g. Jeremy Hunts proposed tax cut could encourage more business here.

I’d be prepared to pay more tax and I’m not scared of voting for a party that would do that. I would obviously want it spent wisely, not wasted on bridges or water cannons that never get used (there’s a political credibility crisis).

sal_III

OP seems to neglect the fact that there are 10'000s if not 100'000s of properties held by overseas investors, often sitting empty in a new build development.

A lot of renters can't afford to buy now, despite having steady jobs and good credit. With a 50% price drop they will be able to afford to buy. This will reduce the demand for rented accommodations and will depress the rents, making a lot of BTLs unsustainable, forcing the LLs to sell, which will release even more properties on the market etc.

Eventually the market will again pickup and correct itself in some areas, but others will trap a lot of people in negative equity (see parts of NI)

lisyloo

sal_III wrote: »

With a 50% price drop they will be able to afford to buy.

The issue that is often overlooked and is repeated many time is that whatever catastrophic event has caused a 50% drop may mean the the Buyer or their partner has lost their job or reduced hours or reduced income whilst mortgage criteria has tightened.
You are comparing the income and job security in good times with house prices during a recession which is nonsense.
There will also be a fall in confidence which means many will be fearful of buying, after all how do you know the house you’re buying won’t fal, further? It’s called trying to catch a falling knife when you assume somehow you’ll magically buy right at the bottom.

Most people will be less able to buy and fearful.

It will benefit cash rich individuals who can afford to take a risk and won’t benefit the ordinary joe.

It’s unicorn economics to think prices could crash yet we’d all have our jobs and be carrying on happily as normal. It just won’t happen.