Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Inequality


AngryOfTuebrook
 Share

Recommended Posts

Maybe don't sell off the debt to private companies then...

 

Graduates would be paying around 50% tax with IT, NI and SLC repayments and they want to lower the threshold?

 

It's a tax on aspiration.

 

News klaxon: The FT’s Bethan Staton, George Parker and Peter Foster have a belter of a splash reporting that Downing Street is considering lowering the threshold at which graduates begin paying back their student loans. The earnings threshold is currently £27,295. The FT says Chancellor Rishi Sunak wants to lower that number “reflecting Treasury concerns that the taxpayer is footing too great a burden of funding university courses.” That’s the sort of story that could turn Labour conference into a success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
2 hours ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Ash on landlordism.

 


‘Take out the rentiers, you take out the problem’ Picketty*
 

Its a self sustaining, facilitating avoidance package and measure which only removes money from an economic system and does nothing but sustain itself and the wealth it generates at the expense of all others whilst driving demand and the profit motif in all other areas.

 

All property is theft as any fool knows.

 

*paraphrased.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, A Red said:

Is being a landlord bad?


Not really, more the people who do it over and over and take housing out of the system whilst driving up prices.

 

It’s not aimed at the couple who bought an investment for their pension, though they are part of the overall problem, more the companies buying up large swathes of housing and using as a capitalism 2.0 piggy bank. 
 

It becomes an economic system that generates nothing other than for the people who buy it up and creates huge taxation and societal issue which has been largely ignored over the years and now we’re at a crisis point of sorts and it needs to be addressed.

 

Its well worth reading up on, just look at Picketty, or a précis of it for some more depth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any meaningful action on the housing market will have a major knock-on effect on house prices, which is why no government will ever grasp that particular nettle. So much of this country's wealth is tied up in property, it would bring the whole edifice down.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

Any meaningful action on the housing market will have a major knock-on effect on house prices, which is why no government will ever grasp that particular nettle. So much of this country's wealth is tied up in property, it would bring the whole edifice down.


And knowingly so, sadly.

 

Banks depend on the fake money it ‘creates’ and pensions funds investments depend on it etc.

 

Its such artifice that you’d really struggle to create a work of fiction as absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bruce Spanner said:

And knowingly so, sadly.

 

Banks depend on the fake money it ‘creates’ and pensions funds investments depend on it etc.

 

Its such artifice that you’d really struggle to create a work of fiction as absurd.

 

Not forgetting people who bought their council house in the 80s for 20 grand and now it's worth 600 grand and it makes them feel wealthy. But it's still the same house.

 

I love owning my own home but society needs to reassess its attitude towards housing. Too many see houses as an investment and it's not healthy.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

Not forgetting people who bought their council house in the 80s for 20 grand and now it's worth 600 grand and it makes them feel wealthy. But it's still the same house.

 

I love owning my own home but society needs to reassess its attitude towards housing. Too many see houses as an investment and it's not healthy.


Yeah, the council house sell off was one of the more egregious crimes the Tories ever committed, selling off low value, poorly maintained housing for a profit, whilst stimulating the banking (debt) and building industries is the one of the most damaging legacies of ‘That Bitch’.

 

Fully in keeping with the ethos which scars the psych to this day.

 

My brother has ‘Flipped’ about 4/5 houses now and made a small profit on each, which he then spends on the next without really getting anywhere or anything better, it’s mad the level people bought in to this bullshit. He’s not happy, he’s just going through the motions of being a property ‘tycoon’ which sadly too many aspire to.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27/09/2021 at 08:16, Bruce Spanner said:

Maybe don't sell off the debt to private companies then...

 

Graduates would be paying around 50% tax with IT, NI and SLC repayments and they want to lower the threshold?

 

It's a tax on aspiration.

 

News klaxon: The FT’s Bethan Staton, George Parker and Peter Foster have a belter of a splash reporting that Downing Street is considering lowering the threshold at which graduates begin paying back their student loans. The earnings threshold is currently £27,295. The FT says Chancellor Rishi Sunak wants to lower that number “reflecting Treasury concerns that the taxpayer is footing too great a burden of funding university courses.” That’s the sort of story that could turn Labour conference into a success.

Discourages the soot clad oiks from getting above their station.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bobby Hundreds said:

I got a mortgage because its cheaper than renting and I'm not buying someone else another house for their portfolio. A weird situation where people are paying 700 quid a month rent but being denied a mortgage for 500 quid a month. 


Exactly.

 

The real economic problem with rental as assets is that a mortgage, at favourable interest rates as you have collateral, will always appear as debt on you account so you never pay tax as it’s a liability, which the rent pays off against, but the equity is untaxed profit which accumulates over time, whilst your debt is reduced and assets are increased.

 

Its a system of tax less, imaginary gain which is used to borrow against others of the same, the portfolio is debt with others paying that for you whilst your new assets, and the equity, are tax free.

 

Such a fucking scam.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good posts by SD.

 

The perception of housing is framed largely through Thatcherism, i.e owning your house is the be all and end all of your life's endeavours. 

 

Likewise, the perception of affordable rented homes as being crap is bollocks too.

 

The council houses in Speke will last a hundred years longer than the shite new build estates popping up all over the shop, some of them are massive inside too. 

 

We bought our own place but that was more because I wanted to lives somewhere quiet and social housing doesn't give you any choice, you get what you're given.

 

The private rented market is something we had a bad experience with when I was about 20, the landlord wanted us out because he wanted the house for his daughter, so we were very nearly all homeless. After that, I never wanted anyone to have that kind of power over me again. 

 

Don't know what it's like in other countries but you get the impression that renting is more of an option because it's all been professionalised, with bona fide companies, caps, guaranteed length of stay etc.

 

Over here, landlords just seem like total shysters. Bunch of homes under the hammer cunts.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

Good posts by SD.

 

The perception of housing is framed largely through Thatcherism, i.e owning your house is the be all and end all of your life's endeavours. 

 

Likewise, the perception of affordable rented homes as being crap is bollocks too.

 

The council houses in Speke will last a hundred years longer than the shite new build estates popping up all over the shop, some of them are massive inside too. 

 

We bought our own place but that was more because I wanted to lives somewhere quiet and social housing doesn't give you any choice, you get what you're given.

 

The private rented market is something we had a bad experience with when I was about 20, the landlord wanted us out because he wanted the house for his daughter, so we were very nearly all homeless. After that, I never wanted anyone to have that kind of power over me again. 

 

Don't know what it's like in other countries but you get the impression that renting is more of an option because it's all been professionalised, with bona fide companies, caps, guaranteed length of stay etc.

 

Over here, landlords just seem like total shysters. Bunch of homes under the hammer cunts.

Spot on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The housing issue wont be solved by taxes. 

 

I have a madcap fool proof plan that is completely thought out with no guess work at all to solve the housing crisis.

 

The government builds 1 million houses which it sells to first time buyers only at a discounted rate with low or zero deposits, as long as they pass a basic credit check. These houses cannot then be sold for 5 years and then at market value. 10% of the sale profit and all future sales goes back to the government. Every year the government adds another 250k houses for 4 years. 

 

The housing market has loads more supply so demand and therefore prices increase slower and the government gets its money back in 9 years and 6 months. Professional large scale landlords are forced to sell properties off and 1 million families can achieve their aspiration of being on the housing ladder.

 

Its a socialist/capitalist winner

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

Any meaningful action on the housing market will have a major knock-on effect on house prices, which is why no government will ever grasp that particular nettle. So much of this country's wealth is tied up in property, it would bring the whole edifice down.

Thatcher's master-stroke was the housing stuff. It not only transferred huge amounts of money from the millions to the millionaires, but it also knacked the ability of workers to say "take this job and shove it" because without the security of public housing, they have too much to lose.

And it was done in a way that made working class people think they were gaining something wonderful, for which many are still grateful.

 

Evil genius.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In principle I don't have any objection to long-term tenants being given the opportunity to buy the home they're living in, but they should have to be replaced like for like. I think under Thatcher councils were only getting a modest proportion of the proceeds, and they weren't allowed to build new homes until they'd paid off debts, so the social housing stock got properly depleted. Obviously it was a smart move for the Tories because they'd figured out that homeowners were more likely to vote for them, so they created millions more homeowners, and sod the consequences for anyone who came later.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

In principle I don't have any objection to long-term tenants being given the opportunity to buy the home they're living in, but they should have to be replaced like for like. I think under Thatcher councils were only getting a modest proportion of the proceeds, and they weren't allowed to build new homes until they'd paid off debts, so the social housing stock got properly depleted. Obviously it was a smart move for the Tories because they'd figured out that homeowners were more likely to vote for them, so they created millions more homeowners, and sod the consequences for anyone who came later.

All true SD. Thatcher would only release money to the council for housing stock sales after they'd cleared debts meaning new house building suffered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

In principle I don't have any objection to long-term tenants being given the opportunity to buy the home they're living in, but they should have to be replaced like for like. I think under Thatcher councils were only getting a modest proportion of the proceeds, and they weren't allowed to build new homes until they'd paid off debts, so the social housing stock got properly depleted. Obviously it was a smart move for the Tories because they'd figured out that homeowners were more likely to vote for them, so they created millions more homeowners, and sod the consequences for anyone who came later.

Spot on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...