.

[johna.clements]

moving neighborhood streets is a problem. By moving, I mean what is a vibrant neighborhood will generally become out of style and will be inhabited by poor and retirees. but nobody wants to figure out how to prevent that from occurring and the relatively abundant land here creates a donut of increasing size. Outside the donut, not so great. In the center, not so great. But over time the donut's lines change, new development is done at the outer side and the group near the center ages.

I don't have a great answer for it.

it also has a lot to do with our enormous energy consumption. I live a whopping 6 miles from downtown and ride the bus, and am not green by any means, but I don't see the draw in doubling the house size and moving 3 -5 times as far away. It's just selling away too much of my future time.

The way schools are allocated for around here also creates some oddness - like a recent TIF proposal where I grew up, where nearly the entire cost of infrastructure was going to be taken up by the public in "increment financing" (issuing a bond and then using property taxes of the new development to pay off the bond). Very little net improvement in revenue would occur for a very long time, but the school would've gotten a little bit in taxes and the new development was 55+, so they expected few students. So they lobbied for it hard. For the community itself, it would've have amount to much and the risk of cost overruns was on everyone else.

I saw people I thought I had some respect for quickly figuring out how to change that. I guess they stood to gain financially somehow in it.

There's too much of that because there's also a huge aversion to increasing local taxes.

The US appears to be a Ponzi scheme. Too many places borrow money to build developments then do not tax people to enough to pay for the future maintenance costs of the development in which they live. When they move in there are not many bills for the new development. But they do tax them enough to pay the bills that are starting to come due on the previous development. They can only keep taxes low by building more developments to bring in more tax pay for the costs of the previous development. When the all the land is built on there are no new taxpayers so tax must go up and people leave to the next new town.

That's what it looks like to me, here in the UK.

 

[Thingybob]

People who are too young to have experienced the high interest rates have taken out big mortgages thinking that the low interest rates are normal and without thinking that they might just rise at some point in the future. To make maters worse many have not been paying more off that mortgage to reduce the debt whilst the rates were low and so are now facing some very hard times. On the other hand it might now at last be time for us savers to receive some rewards on our savings.

When I purchased a property many years ago when the prices were realistic I only borrowed roughly 1.25 times my annual income which rose fast enough so as I could clear my debt within seven years.

Only had 3 houses in my life and the first two when i was mortgageing them i was counciled by the mortgage co as to if the rates went up would i be able to afford the repayments which made me think about could I and in the 80s i had a few sleepless nights but scraped through i feel for the younger ones just setting out on this journey

 

[Flynnwood]

Hypothesis:
If you simultaneously put 600 hundred BBC cameras in front of 600 politician's, giving them 3 seconds to answer this:
What is seven times eight?

 

[Jameshow]

Imho taxation us the means to civil society. I.e. the means to pay for hospitals, schools, police, roads etc etc etc.....

If you reduce the tax income the services become reduced and then you have to purchase top up services esp in healthcare and education. Then you get disparity of provision and civil unrest.

Reducing taxation imho means that the poor get poorer either as employed public servants or as recipients of services or benefits.

What's the answer a balanced society of public and private, industry and services.


ATM we are too much dependant on services and an unhealthy trade deficit.

 

[Amateur]

Society has changed beyond belief.
Values that held good back then are sniggered at by todays generation.
You can't expect anything else but rebellion when you send every person coming out of school to university that only start contributing to the pot sometimes at the age of 26.
Then wonder why they have a token pension later in life.
We have all had it too good for too long and people have forgotten what strife actually is or never experienced it.
Immigrants doing the menial jobs because our benefit system people won't touch them and millions paid out to stay at home..or whatever they do.
No one has mentioned the days when you couldn't get a job anywhere and still scratted around to pay the mortgage. But this generation have never had to go there. Never worked two or three jobs on top of their 40 hrs.
On housing costs back in the day two people met fairly young got engaged, stayed at home with parents and saved to get that house deposit and mortgage foregoing holidays, nights out etc
Very few do today and many more living over the brush in rented, influenced by the loss of everything should a divorce happen. No savings...whats the point they say?
And when MPs start disliking something or someone that doesnt quite fit with them then gang up, we end up with one PM ousted and another under pressure. How many more?
The whole country has something to moan about and we are becoming ungovernable.
No point saying more except a conversation outside the food bank in town.
Two women.
" I thought you'd been down once this week?"
"Yeh, I have, but the dog was out of food so I fed it on the first lot. I'm just going in for some more for the family"
Says it all?

 

[Thingybob]

Well we got rid of one PM because he partied while we were locked down . Now we have one who is actualy taking money from you in one way or another and damaging the economy to boot whilst making the rich richer Question which one would you rather have some will say neither but i wonder what would of happened with the devil you knew

 

[Jacob]

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022...conomic,cancer treatments to indoor plumbing.

 

[Jacob]

..... a conversation outside the food bank in town.
Two women.
" I thought you'd been down once this week?"
"Yeh, I have, but the dog was out of food so I fed it on the first lot. I'm just going in for some more for the family"
Says it all?

Says most likely completely untrue. Malicious gossip in fact.

 

[D_W]

The US appears to be a Ponzi scheme. Too many places borrow money to build developments then do not tax people to enough to pay for the future maintenance costs of the development in which they live. When they move in there are not many bills for the new development. But they do tax them enough to pay the bills that are starting to come due on the previous development. They can only keep taxes low by building more developments to bring in more tax pay for the costs of the previous development. When the all the land is built on there are no new taxpayers so tax must go up and people leave to the next new town.

That's what it looks like to me, here in the UK.

It's probably similar to the UK. Slightly more debt to GDP, but more economic potential here than in the UK.

I think there's more property development here because the restrictions on land use aren't as tight as they are in the UK, which is also why the properties are cheaper (outside of parts of california, NY and other trendy places where you can spend multimillions for a fraction of an acre and a 5000 sq foot house).

All of the services in general (ongoing) and infrastructure are well funded. The part about borrowing against future revenues is always there for the new builds because it's politically unpopular to tell current payers that their rates will go up for improved service for someone else.

 

[John Brown]

My neighbour volunteers at a food bank. People don't just turn up(in flash cars) and take stuff.

 

[Spectric]

i feel for the younger ones just setting out on this journey

But just like those that came before they will be mostly in charge of their journey and will have to make those decisions, but the best advice I would give is to jump the sinking ship and find a more stable one to build a new life on, the world is your oyster whilst you have youth on your side.

 

[johna.clements]

It's probably similar to the UK. Slightly more debt to GDP, but more economic potential here than in the UK.

I think there's more property development here because the restrictions on land use aren't as tight as they are in the UK, which is also why the properties are cheaper (outside of parts of california, NY and other trendy places where you can spend multimillions for a fraction of an acre and a 5000 sq foot house).

All of the services in general (ongoing) and infrastructure are well funded. The part about borrowing against future revenues is always there for the new builds because it's politically unpopular to tell current payers that their rates will go up for improved service for someone else.

In the UK local government has limited borrowing abilities. They have to have a balanced budget.

 

[julianf]

My neighbour volunteers at a food bank. People don't just turn up(in flash cars) and take stuff.

Yeah they do. With their latest iPhones, and designer trainers.


Don't get me started on immigration.
Do you know they get given a brand new car as soon as they say they have a child?

 

[baldkev]

For those old enough to remember the Beatles song "Taxman", the lyrics were wrong - "there's 1 for you 19 for me". The real rate of tax was 83% + 15% investment income surcharge - 98% in total.

Did they?? I know the stevie ray vaughn version, didnt know the beetles wrote it

I saw an article on flipboard a few days ago when a guy ( the author i believe ) complaned that his benefits didnt rise to match inflation and his mortgage payments i didnt read the article ( couldnt be bothered ), but one commenter was astounded that his benefits factored in to help get the mortgage !

We need to renew ours before February..... meeting the mortgage advisor tomorrow

 

[baldkev]

Just floating this ( im not an economist )
If everyone beyond say 18k a year paid a flat rate of 20%, no exceptions, including on bonuses and any other 'benefits' of their job / investments, would we be better or worse off? At the mo a lot of high earners get away with cheating their tax bills, so a 20%, non negotiable rate for all, would be fair?
Including big tech and corporations, i.e google and amazon forvexample

 

[julianf]

Year on year growth is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme.

There's some numbers as to the number of tonnes of "stuff" a society needs to, basically, pull out of the ground to maintain X growth... You can argue about the numbers, but the undeniable reality is that above a relatively small number there just isn't enough "stuff" to be pulled out.

It's an inherent flaw in the plan. "Stuff" is limited. You can get better with "stuff" or create room temperature nuclear fusion, or whatever, but, whatever way you look at it, infinite growth is infinitely impossible.

 

[D_W]

In the UK local government has limited borrowing abilities. They have to have a balanced budget.

They generally do here, too. When there's new construction, they issue a bond and the new asset pays for the bod plus some. The tif funding plan I mentioned is a new wrinkle to try to bring development to blighted or poor areas. Most of the bonds floated here are to upgrade infrastructure when paying outright isn't possible. The bonds have tax advantages for investors so that the coupon rate is cheaper than a secured loan would be.

 

[GweithdyDU]

Here in Sweden we just suffered through one of the most stupid elections ever. No ideas, no visions no serious reforms. A lot of jabbering and cheap arguments about being tough on crime.

One thing that drove me nuts is the "debate" on the skyrocketing price of electricity in the southern parts of the country. The only thing that has been proposed are subsidies for the consumers. Being fairly far on the left side of politics I havet no problems with goverment interventions to protect people in need and regulating markets if need be. But now it is just about handling out money to everyone who is using a lot of electricity.

No discussion of personal responsibility (and remember I am a leftist!). A lot of the people complaining that they can't afford their energy bills somehow seem to afford an expensive boat, motor cycle, new car or yearly (or even two trips) trip abroad (and don't forget that they absolutely also have to go skiing in the mountains as well!).

No discussion of saving energy. A useful subsidy could be to help people using electricity to warm their house and hot water to get geothermal energy or a air-air heatpump, but no, the upper middle class must be able to continue exactly as before.


Sorry for the rant.

No need for apologies. (fellow left-ist ish, (see other posts) lol

 

[GweithdyDU]

Do you know they get given a brand new car as soon as they say they have a child?

Source/reference please. Cheers

 

[Fergie 307]

For those old enough to remember the Beatles song "Taxman", the lyrics were wrong - "there's 1 for you 19 for me". The real rate of tax was 83% + 15% investment income surcharge - 98% in total.

The wealthy put a huge amount of effort into tax avoidance, and (I suspect) evasion. The "brain drain" denuded the UK of doctors, scientists, lawyers, etc who sought a better lifestyle and income overseas. Mrs Thatcher reduced the tax rate fairly rapidly to 40% and the tax take went up!

Some see taxation as a means of wealth redistribution - redistribution may pay a part in tax policy but as a goal in itself it clearly does not work.

Others see taxation policy as a means of encouraging investment, risk taking, entrepreneurial endeavour creating jobs and wealth.

There is a case for a balanced approach to taxation - but IMHO there is a better case for encouraging growth than redistribution that acts as a drag on progress.

The environmental impacts of growth do need to be addressed through taxation - redistributing wealth likely ensures further environmental degradation follows as those in receipt spend on damaging products and technologies.

Far better to use the tax system to reduce profligacy - the current high cost of energy may drive behaviours towards outcomes that minimise environmental damage. There is a case for supporting those in real need, but taxing carbon consumption rather than income has considerable merit.

How about a tax allowance of £25k and a carbon tax to balance - eg: petrol at £4 per litre, plastics carry a tax of (say) £10 per 100g etc. Behaviours would rapidly change!

Liking much of what you say. I found it interesting that cutting the top 45p tax rate was only going to cost an estimated 2 billion. If that figure is correct then that certainly suggests that a lot of people are avoiding paying it. Problem is often that schemes they enter into often dont just avoid a particular band but, like the scheme Jimmy Carr was involved in, actually lead to paying no tax atall. I think the first thing that needs doing is a radical overhaul, and simplification, of our tax system. This should be coupled with draconian enforcement. But we all need to remember that as things are, with I have no doubt massive evasion, the richest 1% are still accounting for 30% of the tax take. So the wealthy who do pay their dues are to be applauded, not villified. Imagine how much more that would be if we could oblige them all to do it. If we can achieve a situation where everybody paid their dues, individuals and companies alike, then we could all pay less.