Right to buy tenant plan to cost LLs £50 Billion

Green_Bear

mark88man wrote: »

I think you have us mixed up with the Lib Dems

Focused advertising like this is probably the main thing holding up Facebook's share price.

(Although I doubt FB has much of a pension liability yet - so that will help)

And Google, etc.

Arklight

Kohoutek wrote: »

If Labour had won the 2010 or 2015 elections, there would have still very big cuts in public spending, leading to increased inequality. The 2015 manifesto said they would "cut the deficit every year" and committed them to not raising income tax except changing the 45% rate back to 50%. The 2010 manifesto also committed them to no income tax rises and said they wanted to keep businesses taxes "as low as possible".

So based on Labour's own promises at the time (and the real need to improve the UK fiscal position, particularly in 2010-2012), the overwhelming likelihood is that even there had been a Labour government, inequality would have increased significantly during the UK in the post financial crisis period. Perhaps slightly less than under the Tories and with a minor difference in emphasis towards higher tax for very high earners.

I'm not terribly bothered about that. I never voted for or was a member of Labour until Corbyn stood for leadership. For the time being Labour (albeit reluctantly from much of the PLP) stands on a manifesto of redressing inequality, providing housing, and funding public services, not providing billionaires with more yachts.

As you have pointed out. There is little point trying Labour trying to be Tory Lite. Something the Lib Dems will discover in time.

Green_Bear

Cakeguts wrote: »

Its interesting isn't it that Labour can come up with stupid ideas to get at landlords but they don't seem to want to help people with credit card debt. The BBC says that there is £72billion outstanding credit card debt in the UK. I wonder how much of that is owed by people who have bought things that they don't need and can't afford?

Rather than getting at landlords wouldn't it make more sense for it to be more difficult for people to get any form of credit?

Well, that's a completely different topic. But I would say that the High Street banks are just not that interested in regular customers / savers these days. They tolerate us for political and PR purposes. They don't want our money, they create money for free. We're an annoyance for them with our vulnerability to fraud and our insistence on expensive high street branches.

Arklight

Cakeguts wrote: »

Its interesting isn't it that Labour can come up with stupid ideas to get at landlords but they don't seem to want to help people with credit card debt. The BBC says that there is £72billion outstanding credit card debt in the UK. I wonder how much of that is owed by people who have bought things that they don't need and can't afford?



Rather than getting at landlords wouldn't it make more sense for it to be more difficult for people to get any form of credit?

No, I think we're all pretty happy with them starting with landlords.

Green_Bear

Arklight wrote: »

I'm not terribly bothered about that. I never voted for or was a member of Labour until Corbyn stood for leadership. For the time being Labour (albeit reluctantly from much of the PLP) stands on a manifesto of redressing inequality, providing housing, and funding public services, not providing billionaires with more yachts.

As you have pointed out. There is little point trying Labour trying to be Tory Lite. Something the Lib Dems will discover in time.

I've often wondered how the wealthy expats / non-doms would react if a new govt simply cancelled their passports and confiscated their UK real estate.
I presume they'd just buy citizenship in a different country?

Thrugelmir

Cakeguts wrote: »

Its interesting isn't it that Labour can come up with stupid ideas to get at landlords but they don't seem to want to help people with credit card debt. The BBC says that there is £72billion outstanding credit card debt in the UK. I wonder how much of that is owed by people who have bought things that they don't need and can't afford?

There's already work in progress on this front. A draconian approach helps no one though. Nor does it have any wider appeal to the electorate or those likely to vote for reformisat policies.

mark55man

Green_Bear wrote: »

Mostly due to asset price inflation

mainly due to an increasing imbalance in how the 1% view the workforce and the rewards that workers can extract - + isnt asset price inflation exactly the same thing as saying only those with assets benefit and the more assets you have the more benefits you receive. I think you were implying it was a gentle 1% per year - I suspect not

more precisely, its a constant fight now (especially for lower paid lower skilled jobs) for workers to even stay even in terms of money, terms and conditions. Then you have private landlords squawking everytime anyone suggests that they can't do whatever they want. even if (from my direct experience) that includes not doing proper maintenance, using phony inventories to rip the !!!!! out of deposits, completely speculative and unenforceable contracts.

Green_Bear

Cakeguts wrote: »

Its interesting isn't it that Labour can come up with stupid ideas to get at landlords but they don't seem to want to help people with credit card debt. The BBC says that there is £72billion outstanding credit card debt in the UK. I wonder how much of that is owed by people who have bought things that they don't need and can't afford?


Rather than getting at landlords wouldn't it make more sense for it to be more difficult for people to get any form of credit?

One man's debt, is another man's investment.
If you own a FTSE tracker, some of that debt is your dividend.

Kohoutek

mark88man wrote: »

more precisely, its a constant fight now (especially for lower paid lower skilled jobs) for workers to even stay even in terms of money, terms and conditions. Then you have private landlords squawking everytime anyone suggests that they can't do whatever they want. even if (from my direct experience) that includes not doing proper maintenance, using phony inventories to rip the !!!!! out of deposits, completely speculative and unenforceable contracts.

We need to hugely overhaul tenancy law in this country, probably including, as has been suggested here, security of tenure and rent controls.

If appropriately robust regulation was brought it (e.g. including big penalties which are actually enforced) , it could also squeeze out a lot of the rogue landlords. The FCA did this with payday lending - they toughened the regulation in a way they knew would put a lot of the dubious lenders out of business.

It would be much more effective in improving renters' situation that this right to buy plan (given right to buy only works for renters that can actually afford a mortgage, for one). McDonnell is invariably interested in the 'smash the system' approach for the sake of it, though.

Green_Bear

mark88man wrote: »

mainly due to an increasing imbalance in how the 1% view the workforce and the rewards that workers can extract - + isnt asset price inflation exactly the same thing as saying only those with assets benefit and the more assets you have the more benefits you receive. I think you were implying it was a gentle 1% per year - I suspect not

more precisely, its a constant fight now (especially for lower paid lower skilled jobs) for workers to even stay even in terms of money, terms and conditions. Then you have private landlords squawking everytime anyone suggests that they can't do whatever they want. even if (from my direct experience) that includes not doing proper maintenance, using phony inventories to rip the !!!!! out of deposits, completely speculative and unenforceable contracts.

Yes. The rich own more assets. Hence growing inequality.

If you gave low paid workers a free house, so they didn't need to pay rent, then they could probably cope on their low wages.

Increasing wages alone probably won't help - if it just leads to higher rent inflation.
The private rental market involves a LL buying an asset that is of limited supply (or else who would rent the house?) and extracting rent from the tenants.

The problem is ZIRP has inflated house prices, trapping workers in rented houses.
The only ways to reverse this are to redistribute housing and / or raise interest rates.