THE FOURTH OF JULY

[Jacob]

@Jacob The UK is short of circa 4 million home. The usual ‘grab second homes jibberish would make hardly a dent in the need.

It'd be a start. But there are other empty properties, planning land unused as an investment..etc etc

https://www.centreforcities.org/housing/#:~:text=Centre for Cities' latest piece,of 4.3 million missing homes.

No party is going to fix that in a term in office.

Could do some big moves very quickly if the will was there

What’s important is not disturbing and reducing the fragile rental market that tuyere presently exists. If it continues to shrink we will see increasing homelessness with no solution.

Control, regulate, standardise, if necessary requistion etc etc. It's an emergency

Both major parties are clueless IMO when it comes to rental property. I remember the last time we had rent control, introduced by Labour, it destroyed the rental property market with landlords unable to maintain properties properly. Inflation might be running at c5% in the last few years, but building materials have more than doubled.

They are currently failing to an even greater degree, after 14 years of tory government

 

[Spectric]

You are overlooking the obvious, there is a shortage of houses in the short term but what about when the boomers start to depart this world and then there will be a lot more. Born between 1946 to 1964 in the boom years then ages from 60 to 78 years old and about 13 plus million homes will hit the market over the next 20 odd years.

 

[Jacob]

You are overlooking the obvious, there is a shortage of houses in the short term but what about when the boomers start to depart this world and then there will be a lot more. Born between 1946 to 1964 in the boom years then ages from 60 to 78 years old and about 13 plus million homes will hit the market over the next 20 odd years.

That's another problem. Can't have people on the waiting list for 20 odd years they need homes now!
Guessing about the future takes on a different meaning what with climate change. e.g. There are likely to be large areas flooding and abandoned in the near future.

 

[Chris152]

Guessing about the future takes on a different meaning what with climate change. e.g. There are likely to be large areas flooding and abandoned in the near future.

And then there will be a potential problem with immigration, rather than it being a silly political lever.

 

[Jacob]

And then there will be a potential problem with immigration, rather than it being a silly political lever.

Or emigration, or movement around Britain etc who knows?
My point is it's an increasing fact of life and we might as well work out how to deal with it in a civilised way now, while we still can. A rehearsal! To face it rather than ducking out with moronic schemes like Rwanda.
Also we desperately need the labour force.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Unoccupied and second homes total ~1.5m in England. Not all could contribute to solving housing availability - some is structurally constrained:

• second homes in very nice area with limited infrastructure or jobs locally,
• probate, elderly owners moving into care,
• poor condition with no funds for repairs
• awaiting redevelopment
• being modernised

Based on an article in The Big Issue there are 260k homes long term empty (defined as over 6 months). It may be that ~500k could be brought back into use with the right incentives or legislation.

At present there are ~180k new housing starts pa. This anyway should increase to meet the needs of a growing population. There are two barriers - planning and skilled labour.

Increasing by 200k pa would deliver 4m new homes over 20 years. This doubles resources required for housebuilding. 4m over 5 years - probably fantasy land aspiration.

The efforts would be entirely ineffectual if immigration was used to fill the skilled labour shortage - they will also need somewhere to live and make demands on other infrastructure. A far better approach is focussed training and re-skilling UK nationals as skills needed in other areas decline.

Planning changes are more easily made - but a democracy relies upon common assent.

Climate change timescales on climate change are quite different. The housing crisis is now. The larger impacts of climate change are 5-10 decades away. CC needs action now - but getting there is no consistent narrative to future implications.

Legislation and incentives I am personally wholly against state sponsored theft (requisition) of personal assets which some see as a solution.

There is also the complete fallacy that somehow greater rent and landlord legislation will solve the housing crisis - it won't! It will do zero to increase the overall supply of property and disrupt existing markets unpredictably - eg:

• reduce the supply of rental property as landlords sell
• landlords become selective in the quality of tenants reducing supply for those most in need

Democracy and funding - there needs to be a very clear understanding of priorities - housing, poverty, immigration, education, NHS, etc - the costs of resolution, how the money will be raised, and an appreciation of unintended consequences.

Our democracy relies upon public consent demonstrated through the ballot box at least every 5 years. It may an imperfect system - it is simply the least worst way of governing. However worthy the aspiration for equality and the elimination of all that is bad, state control by edict is unacceptable.

 

[Jacob]

. The larger impacts of climate change are 5-10 decades away.

Really? Not what the science says - they say we have 5 years. Nor what is happening on the ground - though here we are lucky so far, we've only had something like the wettest/warmest winter/spring ever recorded.

CC needs action now -

Yes, but probably too late

but getting there is no consistent narrative to future implications.

Not sure what that means

state control by edict is unacceptable.

The whole role of the state is to regulate things to our mutual advantage, by edict if necessary, but with some intelligent efforts at persuasion wherever possible. That's democracy for you!

 

[kinverkid]

Jonathan Pie - the f-word crops up a few times, so don't watch if you're unhappy with that:

Love him.

 

[ey_tony]

Since when have the wealthy not been motivated in pursuit and retention of the wealth "they don't need"? And sometimes even ended up in prison for it!
Listen how they skwark at the slightest hint of increasing taxation on the wealth they don't need, even if it is being spent on good causes such as alleviation of poverty and support of public services, where people do need it!
Congratulations on spotting that they don't need it however - all the more reason to tax them as it is worth less to them - you can only eat one dinner, as the saying goes.
PS as for corruption and crime - the only difference is that the wealthy tend to commit much bigger crimes than the less well off, as you'd expect e.g. compare/contrast tax evasion and benefit fraud.

I'm by no means wealthy nor a Tory so here's how I see it. The government is clearly spending more than it's raising in tax revenue which means the country is living above and beyond it's means to pay which is patently obvious judging by the amount of borrowing the government has been doing just to fund the UK's day to day living.
If we want better services then they need to be paid for or existing services need cutting if the public is not willing to pay more in taxes to fund them.

The top 10% of UK earners already contribute over 60% to the tax burden with the bottom 10% contributing less than 1%.
The top 1% alone contribute getting on for 30% so exactly how much of other people's earnings do you believe you're entitled to take from them?

It's clear that many workers are just not paying sufficient in taxes to fund the services we all expect the government to provide so unless everyone pays THEIR fair share of taxes, then the country can never reduce its debt nor the government provide the quality of services the public expect..
Free doesn't actually mean free, someone has to pay for it!

I have a good idea, how about socialists like yourself and anyone else who believes that other people should contribute more, should themselves dip their hands into THEIR OWN pockets for a change and pay their own fair share of taxes instead of supporting punitive taxes on the successful?
It's not the wealthy who aren't contributing enough it's the vast majority of workers who aren't and that disparity needs addressing.

I'm not a Tory and certainly not a socialist, but I do hold the same views on socialism as those of the late Winston Churchill .."the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy " and as Friedrich Hayek (Nobel prizewinner economics) once said... "If socialists understood economics, then they wouldn't be socialists" which about sums it up.

 

[Jacob]

....
The top 1% alone contribute getting on for 30% so exactly how much of other people's earnings do you believe you're entitled to take from them?

As much as is necessary to run a civilised society, for the benefit of all.

Amazing how many people rise up to defend the right of the mega rich to have much more than they need when so many have much less, whether in terms of income and/or in public services

 

[ey_tony]

As much as is necessary to run a civilised society, for the benefit of all.

Amazing how many people rise up to defend the right of the mega rich to have much more than they need when so many have much less, whether in terms of income and/or in public services

If you want a civilised and fair society, punishing the successful with punitive taxes is not going to change things. EVERYONE and not just the rich have got to pay their fair share of the tax burden.
Clearly the vast majority of taxpayers are simply not paying enough in tax and expecting those who are successful to pay their share.
That smacks of entitlement and envy at the very least.
Justify how you feel you are entitled to take away someone's earnings just so that you don't have to pay your share. I'd argue it's not their problem, it's yours!

 

[Jacob]

If you want a civilised and fair society, punishing the successful with punitive taxes is not going to change things.

It's not punishment. It's taking tax from where the money is.

EVERYONE and not just the rich have got to pay their fair share of the tax burden.

They do, even if they pay no income tax they pay indirect taxes like VAT. In fact as a proportion of total income the poor tend to pay much more than the better off. Not obvious, but this is an unintended consequence of indirect taxes.

Clearly the vast majority of taxpayers are simply not paying enough in tax and expecting those who are successful to pay their share.
That smacks of entitlement and envy at the very least.

You can't tax people who haven't got the money or the wealth.

Justify how you feel you are entitled

Not me personally, its all of us

to take away someone's earnings just so that you don't have to pay your share.

Quite happy to pay my share. The question is what would actually be fair? Personally I think I should be paying much more as I am not badly off (but by no means "wealthy" - just debt free, no mortgage, tiny pension, small savings, own house.)

I'd argue it's not their problem, it's yours!

I'd argue that it's a problem for all of us.

 

[sploo]

I'm by no means wealthy nor a Tory so here's how I see it. The government is clearly spending more than it's raising in tax revenue which means the country is living above and beyond it's means to pay which is patently obvious judging by the amount of borrowing the government has been doing just to fund the UK's day to day living.
If we want better services then they need to be paid for or existing services need cutting if the public is not willing to pay more in taxes to fund them.

The top 10% of UK earners already contribute over 60% to the tax burden with the bottom 10% contributing less than 1%.
The top 1% alone contribute getting on for 30% so exactly how much of other people's earnings do you believe you're entitled to take from them?

It's clear that many workers are just not paying sufficient in taxes to fund the services we all expect the government to provide so unless everyone pays THEIR fair share of taxes, then the country can never reduce its debt nor the government provide the quality of services the public expect..
Free doesn't actually mean free, someone has to pay for it!

I have a good idea, how about socialists like yourself and anyone else who believes that other people should contribute more, should themselves dip their hands into THEIR OWN pockets for a change and pay their own fair share of taxes instead of supporting punitive taxes on the successful?
It's not the wealthy who aren't contributing enough it's the vast majority of workers who aren't and that disparity needs addressing.

I'm not a Tory and certainly not a socialist, but I do hold the same views on socialism as those of the late Winston Churchill .."the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy " and as Friedrich Hayek (Nobel prizewinner economics) once said... "If socialists understood economics, then they wouldn't be socialists" which about sums it up.

I think the logic is that someone earning £1M a year (gross) and paying an effective 50% tax rate (i.e. taking home £500,000) is massively better off than someone earning £10,000 (gross) and paying an effective 0% tax rate. Given that the lack of money for public services means that people have to pay for more at the point of use, that hits the poorest harder (£1000 to the first guy is nothing, but huge to the second). Therefore a slightly higher tax burden on the higher earners is not going to make a significant impact on their lives, but the extra money in the system may help those at the bottom.

The bigger issue is more likely that those earning larger sums (individuals and organisations) have options open to avoid paying as much tax; further skewing the inequality.

I've never had a problem that one man drives a Ford and another drives a Ferrari; the issue is that our society today means one man has a fleet of Ferraris and the other man has to decide between paying his rent and feeding his kids. That's too much inequality for my liking.

 

[ey_tony]

It's not punishment. It's taking tax from where the money is.

They do, even if they pay no income tax they pay indirect taxes like VAT. In fact as a proportion of total income the poor tend to pay much more than the better off. Not obvious, but this is an unintended consequence of indirect taxes.

You can't tax people who haven't got the money or the wealth.

Not me personally, its all of us

Quite happy to pay my share. The question is what would actually be fair? Personally I think I should be paying much more as I am not badly off (but by no means "wealthy" - just debt free, no mortgage, tiny pension, small savings, own house.)

I'd argue that it's a problem for all of us.

I'm not well off but I believe taxes are too low for what we expect government to provide.
Unfortunately most people don't think that way and expect those who are already paying the lion's share of the tax burden to pay even more. That is not my idea of a fair society nor is it remotely fair.
Taking more from high earners is not going to fill the shortfall in finances so taxes will still have to rise.

High earners are not responsible for poverty and taking more from the high earners is not going to incentivise the poor to do better and reduce poverty..

 

[graduate_owner]

Regarding income tax - i think a few pence on income tax would be a justifiable move provided (and that is a very big IF) all the money raised was put towards the NHS. I think regarding finance the NHS is a bottomless pit but it is still needed by the majority of the population, and as we all now it is in a dire state. I know we all feel we pay too much tax already - taxed on what we earn, on what we spend, on any savings, and there is inheritance tax on anything left when we die, but that is the price we pay for a welfare state. The tax burden could be applied more on high earners, such as a higher rate of income tax for people earning over £...., and the higher rate thresholds could be adjusted too so lowe wage earners do not have to shoulder the extra burden. But since the NHS needs extra funding, and taxation is the only realistic means of raising extra, then it seems to me that increased taxation is needed.
Finally, I think that this should be declared up front in manifestos, and not done through the back door by discretely raising other taxes (such as has been done - tax on insurance, airport tax, qurried stone etc). Just my opinion for what it is worth. I'm sure many will disagree.

K

 

[Jacob]

I'm not well off but I believe taxes are too low for what we expect government to provide.

Exactly

Unfortunately most people don't think that way and expect those who are already paying the lion's share of the tax burden to pay even more. That is not my idea of a fair society nor is it remotely fair.
Taking more from high earners is not going to fill the shortfall in finances so taxes will still have to rise.

You can't tax people who have no surplus money. It has to fall on the better off.

High earners are not responsible for poverty

arguable! Look at the bonuses and enormous salaries management pay themselves while they keep workers' pay down.

and taking more from the high earners is not going to incentivise the poor to do better and reduce poverty..

The poor don't need an incentive. Do you thing people on minimum wages or less, zero hour contracts should simply work harder, or would have no problem getting better jobs? It's like saying that people with unaffordable rents in defective housing should just go and buy their own homes.

 

[Jacob]

.... I know we all feel we pay too much tax already - ....

We don't all feel that. I feel we need to pay more.
I agree with you - politicians should make this clear and stop pretending the impossible.
Taxation is the price we pay for a civilised society.

 

[Chris152]

Amazing how many people rise up to defend the right of the mega rich to have much more than they need when so many have much less, whether in terms of income and/or in public services

Yep, quite bizarre. And the suggestion that the average worker isn't paying enough, in the context of endless tory tax increases and a 20% increase in prices since 2021, while the very rich continue to accumulate unnecessary wealth and poverty is so widespread, is depressing.

 

[Jacob]

Yep, quite bizarre. And the suggestion that the average worker isn't paying enough, in the context of endless tory tax increases and a 20% increase in prices since 2021, while the very rich continue to accumulate unnecessary wealth and poverty is so widespread, is depressing.

And "the politics of envy" is a pathetic and much overworked cliche.

 

[RobinBHM]

I'm by no means wealthy nor a Tory so here's how I see it. The government is clearly spending more than it's raising in tax revenue which means the country is living above and beyond it's means to pay which is patently obvious judging by the amount of borrowing the government has been doing just to fund the UK's day to day living.
If we want better services then they need to be paid for or existing services need cutting if the public is not willing to pay more in taxes to fund them.

The top 10% of UK earners already contribute over 60% to the tax burden with the bottom 10% contributing less than 1%.
The top 1% alone contribute getting on for 30% so exactly how much of other people's earnings do you believe you're entitled to take from them?

It's clear that many workers are just not paying sufficient in taxes to fund the services we all expect the government to provide so unless everyone pays THEIR fair share of taxes, then the country can never reduce its debt nor the government provide the quality of services the public expect..
Free doesn't actually mean free, someone has to pay for it!

I have a good idea, how about socialists like yourself and anyone else who believes that other people should contribute more, should themselves dip their hands into THEIR OWN pockets for a change and pay their own fair share of taxes instead of supporting punitive taxes on the successful?
It's not the wealthy who aren't contributing enough it's the vast majority of workers who aren't and that disparity needs addressing.

I'm not a Tory and certainly not a socialist, but I do hold the same views on socialism as those of the late Winston Churchill .."the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy " and as Friedrich Hayek (Nobel prizewinner economics) once said... "If socialists understood economics, then they wouldn't be socialists" which about sums it up.

Do you think the typical British worker should be able to earn enough in a full time job to afford to live and have a secure home?
We currently have 4.8m people in food insecurity, 6 million people in fuel poverty and 8 million people waiting for NHS treatment

the UK has far worse levels of inequality than many other Western economies, the typical Brit has a far lower standard of living


Given that there are lots of people who are working full time but cant afford to live, I find it hard to agree with this statement:

"It's not the wealthy who aren't contributing enough it's the vast majority of workers who aren't and that disparity needs addressing"

Workers cant afford to save, some cant afford 3 meals a day every day of the month, many cant afford to heat their homes, increasingly people cant buy houses and are trapped in rent.