I think they are pledging to clear the poor people out of the pricier areas, so more rich people can move in and make them even pricier.
Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I'm shocked.
In answer to my question on low-income housing I got the following:
"There is no such thing, you only build low income housing by dramatically increasing overall supply of housing.
The country demands much cheaper housing yet it gets vitriolic when the government intends to simplify planning controls allowing towns and cities to expand outwards and upwards hence it takes years to get high rises in EC2 through planning as it does for a suburban estate yet people question our low supply of housing.
A government, of any colour, can never win in these circumstances"
"There is no such thing, you only build low income housing by dramatically increasing overall supply of housing.
The country demands much cheaper housing yet it gets vitriolic when the government intends to simplify planning controls allowing towns and cities to expand outwards and upwards hence it takes years to get high rises in EC2 through planning as it does for a suburban estate yet people question our low supply of housing.
A government, of any colour, can never win in these circumstances"
Income tax does get gamed, but at least, for the most part, salaried income is really hard to game.
No it's not, it just means that rich people will have more houses of less value, so more empty houses, or a comeback of feudalism? Do you want that? What's probably going to be the case is that these super-rich will buy more expensive housing abroad, and less in the UK.
Earned wealth. The owners chose to buy houses in areas of potential increase in values. Your argument is totally flawed.
Firstly, you give no consideration of demand, the fact is Notting hill is a one of the most demanded and attractive areas to live in, this is to do with the quality of housing (maintainance and development), and the quality of people in the community (the owners), and the increasing importance of the location relative to employment (also to do with the owners when they bought the house). Second is, that if you do not vary prices due to changes in demand, but with a the same number of houses in the area, just how will sellers decide who to sell to? They would be completely stupid to sell at the same price as bought, especially given that there will be x10 more people willing to pay more. In reverse, you would also, suggested that if you bought an expensive house in a previously good area of Glasgow, but now 30 years on, it's turned in a shit hole. That person should get a tax cut? Nonsense, this is just going to cause people to be more and more careless about the locations and the prices they pay for housing.
Take a different analogy: Gold, if I bought gold 10 years ago, a lot cheaper than now, should the selling the gold be taxed at a HIGHER rate (i.e. a higher %) simply because its more valuable now? No. The fact is, I bought gold in anticipation of higher gold prices. I could say I had foresight to anticipate that MORE people wanted MY gold, and it should remain MY profit. The same principle goes to house prices. The people in Notting Hill, bought houses in anticipation, in part that more people would demand those houses in the future, thus the higher prices. It is not chance, or randomness as suggested.
My final point is that the government has no right to manipulate the profit and losses I make on property using taxation, it's none of it's business. The government no longer builds houses, private people do, it's only influence is the planning system, but in most places, in built up areas, it's simply the fluctuations in demand from decade to decade, and the attractiveness of the area.
I think your problem is that you think people got 'lucky' where they lived (which is wholly misguided), or what they inherited (again a misguided view). The fact is, they are not, people made decisions, and thus deserve the true market value of those rewards. I think you're probably just envious of the people with houses in this area nothing more and nothing less.
Good post, Jaz.
You would say that, Lord Alastair! Now, where's that Cup Final ticket you promised me*?
*Not strictly true.
You've got to get to one first Steve. I actually object to a part of that post but I thought it was particularly well written.
Damn. Foiled again.
Always!
Salaried income is hard to game, however the wealthy game it so they don't get a salaray, they avoid the tax all together
Just set up an empty homes tax. The wealthy will play their games to avoid tax no matter how reasonable, doesn't mean we should stop chasing them to make them pay their share. If the super rich avoid the UK that'd be no bad thing, they distort the market even further
I understand why house prices are high. Demand bought on by a generous tax system which doesn't tax the gains in the value of property like other income
Gold would be taxed as any other capital gain which will make it different from housing for a start
Goverments manipluate our behaviour through tax all the time, the extra taxes on alcohol, fags and petrol for a start, then what is and isn't taxed with VAT. There are businesses which face taxes in addition to those on their profits, north sea oil, the various windfall taxes on utilities. The Goverment has every right to tax your wealth
Governments don't build homes but they do build a hell of a lot that supports the city those houses are in
Damn gov'ment should get out of regulating property markets because we all know that the property market has no impact whatsoever on the ordinary taxpayer
Clearly you don't understand why house prices are high, mainly that everyone wants or needs to live in the south east where the best jobs are. It has little to do with a generous tax system.
Indeed, but the point stands, that on principle, it should not be taxed more.
Governments do manipulate the market using taxation where they think it's of interest. They tax alcohol, fags and petrol due to externalities to health, or the environment. They are not taxing wealth, they are taxing the bad consumption.
High house prices appear to have no negative externalities. You're suggesting that wealth in general, and more specific that big, well kept houses in good areas are bad. I disagree, as would most people in the country. That's why they should not be taxed any more than small houses in bad areas.
The Lib Dems were on the news again tonight with yet another insane policy to take away the winter fuel allowance from pensioners. I've never been particularly bothered by them, but they've gone completely loony recently. Who's coming up with these policies?
Damn gov'ment should get out of regulating property markets because we all know that the property market has no impact whatsoever on the ordinary taxpayer
FreddieMac FannieMae were part-government organisations, which effectively subsidised mortgages and force down interest rates below usual market rate for lending. In part, this resulted in the subprime crisis. So yeah, the government should not interfere in the property market, because history tells us it's a fecking disaster.
They're thrashing around desperately to try and prove they're not the Tory stooges everybody takes them for.
I think you play down the significance of a tax system thats so generous when it comes to houseing
If gold became stuplidly valuable I wouldn't have a problem with a additional tax on it
They are taxing wealth with the bank bonus tax so its not without precendent
Unearned wealth is a bad thing, wealth in itself isn't
By that reckoning most of the banks should exit stage left as well.
It targets well off pensioners, if it means us working stiffs face less cuts I don't have a problem with it. The cuts have tended to fall on the working poor so far with pensioners protected no matter how well off they are, about time the pain was spread
You really think excise duties on alcohol and tobacco were introduced to improve people's health and environment?
I suppose window tax was just for their own good too, fewer apertures to fall out of.
1066 and All That pt 2 - the economics.
They've paid tax all their lives. They deserve a break. I actually think free bus passes are a bit ludicrous - they should be subsidised a bit but not completely. My personal view is that pensioners should have to opt in to all their elderly benefits so that the very wealthy, who nevertheless deserve them might just decide that they don't need them.
The banking tax is not a precedent, it happened AFTER the bank bailouts, it was mainly to claw back the massive bailout by the government (the externality). It was also used in 'Project Merlin' to increase lending, which was/is depressed. The bonus tax is nonsense and will eventually end up scrapped.
This is going round in circles.
I've said that increasing house prices is not unearned wealth, but earned, none of which you've really come back on...
You're saying there is a generous house taxes, though not given any reason as to why expect that it's unearned wealth?
In part yes, sure it's pretty inelastic and hugely revenue raising, but it will, slowly also decrease consumption. Alcohol abuse is a huge government expense to healthcare, as is missing the carbon trading/emission targets. So basically, the government makes you pay for the externalities, one way of another.
It's how to define when the government should intervene or not: in my opinion it's role is to intervene in market failures (externalities, non-functioning markets etc). Still confused about expensive houses?
I have no idea what harm they are causing, if any..?Why do they deserve a break above someone who's on the minimum wage? The latter gets no help with their gas bill
Actually, it should be income based. Everything should. Don't understand why pensions, heating allowance, and bus passes for high-income pensioners is a good use of government money. It's not.
Because they've paid tax for longer and as elderly people, are most vulnerable to a cold home. If you're on the minimum wage, you have the ability to get off it and earn more money. Pensioners don't.
A lot of baby boomers have retired on generous final salary pensions, they're not trying to live on a state pension.
The bonus tax is a precendent, the windfall tax on utilities is also a precedent. Doesn't matter when it happened just that is has, it demonstrates that the government has the right to tax wealth or profit in abover normal tax on income and profit
The wealth is unearned, nothing the homeowner has done will have pushed the price of housing well above inflation, they've done nothing to earn that value
I'm just not generally in favour of taking money off pensioners. I'd even prefer the mansion tax to it.
Just because somebody is a pensioner doesn't mean they are doddering old crones scrabbling to live on a pittance. I think they are the fastest growing demographic with the most disposable income.
This is like the arguments against inheritance tax but now before they even die they're exempt. Oh and this cut is aimed at wealthy pensioners, I'd assume it'd be based on income, those that can afford to warm their own homes wont get the WFA, whats the problem with that?
You may have the ability but you may not be so lucky to find a job which pays well, not with this economy
I appreciate that but it does raise the question of those stuck in the middle, who saved all they could when they worked. They're going to have to pay for their fuel, whereas if they'd spent all their disposable income earlier, they'd get it for free.
The bonus tax is not a precedent, it's there is clawback government expense.
Windfall tax probably is a wealth tax. It's never been used since though, and can't see it being used again.
Luck doesn't come into it. You work hard, you get qualified, you get a job which pays more than the minimum wage.
The problem with this is how one defines a wealthy pensioner. The Lib Dems seem to think that earning more than the average makes you wealthy, which I'm not sure is entirely true.
I'm assuming the policy is not based on wealth, but on income.
I agree, that high income pensioners should not be getting these benefits (maybe bus pass for ease though?)
Where you are born, what your life was like growing up, where you were educated, who you know does come into it, luck.
Yes, to some extent, but I believe anyone can work for more than the minimum wage. It's not really relevant to this debate so I'll let it go.
alastair, I get your point that these people are paid their taxes and deserve their pensions/winter fuel/bus passes. However, given the fact that that almost everyone is getting benefits cut, including disabled people, sick people, unemployed.. across the spectrum, then surely benefits that are not necessary for survival or quality of life need to be abolished.
feck me that's a collosally ignorant and stupid comment, Al.
That's fair enough. Genuinely wealthy pensioners who don't need it can pay up. I'm really talking about the ones in the middle who won't be incentivised to save, which is something we should be encouraging.
At least tell me why as opposed to just saying it. It quite clearly isn't massively ignorant, is it?
Don't want to get into another discussion about this but you know very well that it was the private sector paying politicians to set favourable conditions for property prices to rise by subsidising mortgages that caused it.
The banks were pressuring the government to help poor people buy homes so they would a) have access to new mortages to sell on in financial instruments b) force the prices to rise meaning when the borrower couldn't repay they had an asset that would still be in demand and be worth more than the mortgage they agreed.
It was bank corruption that caused the collapse, not the government attempting to control the market. You can argue that the politicians should have said no.. but you know very well any politician that did not agree would be at a serious financial disadvantage and potentially lose their seats to someone who would.