THE FOURTH OF JULY

[John Brown]

A lot of so-called "wealth creators" create wealth in the same way that a magnet creates iron filings, or a picnic creates wasps.
In my opinion.

 

[John Brown]

And put Russian oligarchs with KGB connections in the H of Lords and allow them to control items of UK main stream media!

I think we've done that already.

 

[RobinBHM]

apparently Conservative MPs are seriously peed off about the general election, it was sprung on them and most havent organised new jobs to go to

Conservative HQ hasnt even fielded over 150 candidates yet
Conservatives havent written their manifesto
its all a bit of a mess

So expect to see Conservative MPs not acting in the interest of the party, especially Sunak, over the next few weeks...

Whichever side people support, I think most people would agree that the country is tired of the Conservative government and its time for a change

 

[evildrome]

If I am clever enough to find ways to accumulate more than my share of wealth (my gains are other people's losses) why shouldn't I also be allowed to hold on to a higher proportion of 'my' wealth. How else can I ensure that my children inherit the advantages I have enjoyed, giving them a head start in finding ways to grab more than their share of wealth?

Because you're creating a multi-generational Plutocracy.

I've no objection to people leaving enough for their kids to have an education and a home but I object to leaving them enough to go through life having never lifted anything heavier than a trust fund cheque.

<mod edit - image deleted - and @evildrome will take a week on the bench. This thread has the potential to derail so sorry, moderation is going to be firm so that it can stay here and not have to be moved to OT2. Criticise policy and ethics to your hearts content but no personal attacks and keep it clean.>

 

[RobinBHM]

Because you're creating a multi-generational Plutocracy.

I've no objection to people leaving enough for their kids to have an education and a home but I object to leaving them enough to go through life having never lifted anything heavier than a trust fund cheque.

View attachment 182021

I like Gary but I find his relentless arrogance does him no favours

not sure this forum will appreciate the language of the above....

 

[evildrome]

Confidentiality is a basic right.

For a whole host of reasons you may not want your neighbour to know how much you earn, what religion you follow, of which masonic lodge you are a member, how you voted in the last election, your medical history, how much tax you paid etc etc.

That places exist to provide confidentiality in financial matters is entirely predictable. A wrong defined by one nation may be entirely acceptable in another. So which legislation should "tax havens" apply when they have the legal right to apply the rules they choose.

Get real - the UK is a beneficiary of tax havens, attracting those who desire confidentiality and those seeking to hide the unacceptable. If the UK did not provide political legitimacy for tax havens the practice won't stop - it will simply go elsewhere.

Some people, a very tiny number of people, benefit directly from UK tax havens.

The rest of us just suffer.

First, there's the tax evaded and second (more importantly) there's the effect that evaded tax has on the UK economy.

What do you think people do with this money? Stuff it in a mattress in the IOM or Jersey?

Nope. They use that money to buy up assets. Assets you and your family need.

Did no one wonder why the UK housing market goes up far in excess of wages?

If no one on a wage can afford a house, who the **** is buying them all?

Its not people on wages bidding up the price of housing, its the oceans of dark untaxed money.

Basically, since the late 60s we have not taxed the wealthy enough and their wealth has increased exponentially since then.

What do you think they do with this money?

And its not just domestic property. Commercial property too.

When you go to Sainsburys or Tesco or Asda or any petrol station or restaurant, that building is probably owned by a commercial property company and they charge those retail companies rent and that rent goes straight on your bill.

 

[Jacob]

Just one more reason why inequality is so bad for us
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...lthy-white-men-uk-biggest-transport-polluters

 

[Spectric]

Whichever side people support, I think most people would agree that the country is tired of the Conservative government and its time for a change

But change is not always positive, you have to be very careful for what you wish for because change can mean instability and uncertaintity which can result in being in an even worse situation, out of the pan and into the fire.

When you actually look at the problems and try to get to the bottom of it all then

why inequality is so bad for us

has a lot to be blamed for, just think why ants are so successful and it is because they work as one large well organised army all with a common objective. Inequality is not a problem if it is at the starting point of your life providing society and the economy provide a means to progress to a point where you reach a level that gives you a good quality of life without financial hardship or being down trodden by those who think they are better than you so deserve more, essentially it offers good opportunity if you want to work for it which is not the UK of today because often just surviving in the toxic enviroment we have created is more than enough to face.

We all look at China and complain about how it is controlled with a single dictator but they do avoid all the internal friction that our current political system creates and they maintain stability. They do have a class system in China but not based on where you were educated but more on economic success and they have a low crime rate but the people can see a future and are proud of their country so this must contribute to the countries success along with the fact there are over 1.25 billion of them, quote

"Since China began to open up and reform its economy in 1978, GDP growth has averaged over 9 percent a year, and almost 800 million people have lifted themselves out of poverty. There have also been significant improvements in access to health, education, and other services over the same period."

 

[sploo]

But change is not always positive, you have to be very careful for what you wish for because change can mean instability and uncertaintity which can result in being in an even worse situation, out of the pan and into the fire.

That's true, but it's darned hard to think how anyone could do a worse job than the dregs of what's left of the Conservative party that's currently running the country.

Having gone from Cameron to May to Johnson to Truss... it's almost like evolution in reverse. Sunak is merely a useless out of touch Tory boy, so I guess slightly less awful than the last couple; but the rest of the party is rammed with the most incompetent and unpleasant individuals I think I've ever encountered.

I'm sure in time we'll find out how bad Labour will be. As the old saying goes "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, for the same reason"

 

[RobinBHM]

But change is not always positive, you have to be very careful for what you wish for because change can mean instability and uncertaintity which can result in being in an even worse situation, out of the pan and into the fire.

Im trying really hard to appreciate your point........but I cant see any change which could possibly be worse.

Can you?

When you actually look at the problems and try to get to the bottom of it all then

politics is not like that unfortunately

The first thing a politician has to do is see what the public will vote for...........because if you dont win you cant sort out any problems

 

[Jacob]

I've reposted over the other side.

 

[sploo]

Yes. A failing Labour government could bring back the tories for a generation. This is what we face with Starmer.

As opposed to Corbyn, who lost an election to an already utterly terrible Tory government?

Don't get me wrong, I'm no Starmer fan; but at least give the bloke time to fail first (and given recent Conservative governments he's going to have to really excel in order to fail that hard).

 

[RobinBHM]

Yes. A failing Labour government could bring back the tories for a generation. This is what we face with Starmer.

Completely wrong and deeply cynical.
It leads to exactly the trap that Starmer is falling into whereby he must break most of his silly pledges from the start if he has any chance of changing anything.
The first thing a politician should do is to consider what the country needs and only then start the process of persuading the electorate. It's not just a lazy passive process of finding out what the electorate would vote for; don't forget, they voted for brexit!
its about shifting expectations, challenging assumptions, opening up new opportunities, thinking creatively, taking risks etc. Starmer couldn't do any of that as he is basically vacant, devious and very timid. He has also constructed a team around him with the same views and attitudes

I have been asked not to bring our ongoing debate into this thread, I don’t want this thread locked, other people may be interested in a friendly discussion about the 4thcoming election (see what I did there )

I will leave it up to others to respond to this

 

[Jacob]

As opposed to Corbyn,

No, Corbyn is history. We have to look forwards!

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Some people, a very tiny number of people, benefit directly from UK tax havens.

The rest of us just suffer.

First, there's the tax evaded and second (more importantly) there's the effect that evaded tax has on the UK economy.

What do you think people do with this money? Stuff it in a mattress in the IOM or Jersey?

Nope. They use that money to buy up assets. Assets you and your family need.

Did no one wonder why the UK housing market goes up far in excess of wages?

If no one on a wage can afford a house, who the **** is buying them all?

Its not people on wages bidding up the price of housing, its the oceans of dark untaxed money.

Basically, since the late 60s we have not taxed the wealthy enough and their wealth has increased exponentially since then.

What do you think they do with this money?

And its not just domestic property. Commercial property too.

When you go to Sainsburys or Tesco or Asda or any petrol station or restaurant, that building is probably owned by a commercial property company and they charge those retail companies rent and that rent goes straight on your bill.


View attachment 182022

Average housing starts over the last 40 years are ~140k pa largely irrespective of the party in power at the time. A few predictable peaks and troughs - Covid, financial crisis etc.

UK population has grown by 11.4m from 56.5m (1984) to 67.9m (2024) - about 280k pa. About 60% of the increase is driven by immigration.

The supply of new property is barely adequate to house the growing population, and inadequate to materially renew the older existing housing stock. For property prices to decline there needs to be a greater supply and/or less demand.

The price of property is also impacted by the cost of servicing a mortgage. Until 2008 the BoE interest rate was typically between 4-7%. Since 2008 until recently the BoE rate has been below 1%.

Conclusion

• We need to build more houses or reduce immigration. UK has amongst the lowest number of empty properties in Europe - only by increasing relative supply will market forces drive down rents and prices.
• that the price of property has surged ahead of incomes is partly due to low interest rates for the last 15 years reducing the cost of servicing a mortgage
• many rented properties are owned not by evil exploitative oligarchs from tax havens, but through inheritance. They feel more comfortable with tangible income producing assets than "digital" ownership of shares, bonds, etc. I am not ashamed to be one of these.
• The ratio of house prices to earnings has grown from 5.1 times in 2002 to 8.1 in 2023 probably reflecting the above observations

 

[RobinBHM]

Average housing starts over the last 40 years are ~140k pa largely irrespective of the party in power at the time. A few predictable peaks and troughs - Covid, financial crisis etc.

UK population has grown by 11.4m from 56.5m (1984) to 67.9m (2024) - about 280k pa. About 60% of the increase is driven by immigration.

The supply of new property is barely adequate to house the growing population, and inadequate to materially renew the older existing housing stock. For property prices to decline there needs to be a greater supply and/or less demand.

The price of property is also impacted by the cost of servicing a mortgage. Until 2008 the BoE interest rate was typically between 4-7%. Since 2008 until recently the BoE rate has been below 1%.

Conclusion

• We need to build more houses or reduce immigration. UK has amongst the lowest number of empty properties in Europe - only by increasing relative supply will market forces drive down rents and prices.
• that the price of property has surged ahead of incomes is partly due to low interest rates for the last 15 years reducing the cost of servicing a mortgage
• many rented properties are owned not by evil exploitative oligarchs from tax havens, but through inheritance. They feel more comfortable with tangible income producing assets than "digital" ownership of shares, bonds, etc. I am not ashamed to be one of these.
• The ratio of house prices to earnings has grown from 5.1 times in 2002 to 8.1 in 2023 probably reflecting the above observations

I think there are more factors involved in the current housing crisis:

1) Thatcher forcing councils to sell and not build more houses
2) deregulation of mortgages from around Blair -including interest only and self cert
3) large amounts of Quantitative Easing pumping money into the economy
4) demand outstripping supply
5) immigration -although Im not convinced this is a true factor as growth rate overall hasnt been any higher than 60s boom and given unemployment has remained low during period of high immigration shows we need immigration for fueling economy


the result is that we have had the last 20+ years of the wealthy growing their assets at a high rate and the poor + the govt, losing assets -this is the real underlying problem in this country

 

[Spectric]

but I cant see any change which could possibly be worse.

Can you?

Financial crash like that caused by Liz Truss
Chasing the big energy companies out of the UK by aggresive taxation
Uncontrolled borrowing to try and meet their promises
Starmergeddon

Sunak offers stability and several broken pledges

The first thing a politician has to do is see what the public will vote for...........because if you dont win you cant sort out any problems

The first thing a politician has to do is to be able to keep a straight face whilst telling lies, then as you say, they say what people want to hear and promise them what they want but then when in power do exactly the opposite or nothing.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no Starmer fan; but at least give the bloke time to fail first

You should always win on merit and not by default, the reason he is saying everything and anything is that he cannot get it wrong, best way to hide a truth is by total confusion and yet he comes out a states he is a socialist, where does he see equality and fairness in getting to his millionare status. I can see it now, Labour wins and Starmers new cabinet is all sitting in number 10 and utterly clueless as to what to do and then they start to unravel and attack each other because no one thought about having a plan as they new they could win by default.

We will get either a continuation of the current mess with Sunak or a different mess with Starmer but averaged out it will not be much better because of global influences they have no control over and if we are really honest then the british are not known for being hardworkers,

https://fortune.com/europe/2023/09/...ted-countries-work-life-balance-productivity/

 

[Jacob]

This lot are worth listening to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_News_Agents

 

[John Brown]

Surely all parties win by default, being considered the lesser of two evils. As the the argument about stability, and the new government (let's hope..) not knowing what to do, if you believe that then we'd just have the one party in power for ever.
Although, reading your posts, I suspect that's what you'd like!

 

[mc281]

I don't vote, I don't care who is in power because they are all as bad as each other, what I do object to is having to shut the school for the day while they use our hall as a voting station

It's not your hall....it's ours!