Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[Gutter Boy]

so a lot of turnips for breakfast lunch and dinner then. What about clothes? Should we all wear the same locally produced garms?

without getting silly … what the government should be doing is building more council houses. Home ownership has never been for everyone, some people aspire to it some don’t. Some because of lifestyle choices some because of convenience.

I don't think we need more houses. There's not exactly significant levels of homelessness per se. It's some redistribution of ownership that's long overdue.

Primarily though we need to get the value of houses down to its usual standard of 3x average salary, down from the ridiculous 13x that it is now. That would bring it in reach much more of that bottom 40% of society who currently have to rent.

 

[DTA]

I don't think we need more houses. There's not exactly significant levels of homelessness per se. It's some redistribution of ownership that's long overdue.

Primarily though we need to get the value of houses down to its usual standard of 3x average salary, down from the ridiculous 13x that it is now. That would bring it in reach much more of that bottom 40% of society who currently have to rent.

if only 20% of housing is in the private rented sector, a significant amount of which is to people on benefits - previously housing benefits- but now universal credit, where do you get the 40% from?

Also good luck in convincing the population that their biggest asset should be reduced in value by 80 odd %.
That would lead to a recession that would make the 1930s seem like the time of milk and honey.

 

[Gutter Boy]

The housing stock is 60% owned and 40% rented, the latter half private and half public. So 40% can't afford to own

I think housing needs something quite radical of the ilk of a debt jubilee to sort it out

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

The socially responsible thing to do would to be to tax second home ownership, foreign ownership and private landlording out of existence. One house owned by one household, and all the leaches cut out.

I think there could at least be a direct connection between 2nd home/foreign ownership taxation and funding for social housing.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

The housing stock is 60% owned and 40% rented, the latter half private and half public. So 40% can't afford to own

I think housing needs something quite radical of the ilk of a debt jubilee to sort it out

It's more than housing that needs a debt jubilee.

But that is not going to happen. A reduction in affordability levels in housing would be so painful as the most likely driver of that would be raised interest rates leading to a price collapse.

Maybe wage inflation will do some catching up?, But that extra money will go on all the things that are running at even higher inflation rates.

 

[glasgowspur]

No - the state would be the only landlord. But ideally almost everyone would be able to own their own, as supply and demand would settle without the competition from profiteers.

I just think morally no one should be able to profit from the basic human need for shelter. It's like hoarding food then selling it on to the poor for highest price you can. Nothing person - that's what neo-liberalism has encouraged the wealthy to do for the last 40 years. I just think its about deeper ethics.

Do you own your home?
Should you ever decide to sell it will you sell it for the same price you bought it for?
If not thats a profit.
you're on very shaky ground, basically saying anyone that ever bought a house and sold it is morally and ethically wrong.

 

[DTA]

The housing stock is 60% owned and 40% rented, the latter half private and half public. So 40% can't afford to own

I think housing needs something quite radical of the ilk of a debt jubilee to sort it out

so you are not only are you looking to destroy the private rented sector, food production and retail, the clothing industry etc etc but you want to destroy the banking sector as well?

What’s left that you won’t destroy.

I’m a socialist leaning guy, you my friend are a straight up hard line communist.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

Also good luck in convincing the banks that own your house that their biggest asset should be reduced in value by 80 odd %.
That would lead to a recession that would make the 1930s seem like the time of milk and honey.

FTFY

 

[SpurMeUp]

What about some laws to get private landlords who are making profits over a threshold to give back more in some way? For example, if your property company is making more than 100,000 pa you have to rent a % to housing associations or refugee agencies etc. Details would need more work, but I don't think most private landlords would mind giving more back.

I've just given a 3 bed worth 20k pa to a Ukrainian family. They have the whole place. Before that I was intending to give it to a refugee agency. This kind of thing https://refugeecouncil.org.uk/get-involved/other-ways-to-help/rent-a-home-to-refugees/ But there needs to be better support for those in the UK who don't have much. I also donate to Shelter each month. I remember living in squats as a kid, and in temporary hostel accommodation when very young. Both pretty unsecure, sometimes violent places.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Do you own your home?
Should you ever decide to sell it will you sell it for the same price you bought it for?
If not thats a profit.
you're on very shaky ground, basically saying anyone that ever bought a house and sold it is morally and ethically wrong.

I would draw a huge distinction between a home (single house) and second/multiple properties owned.

There'd need to be time-limited safeguards redisposing of properties inherited or new couples etc., but the principle of owning for the purpose of renting it needs abolishing

 

[Gutter Boy]

so you are not only are you looking to destroy the private rented sector, food production and retail, the clothing industry etc etc but you want to destroy the banking sector as well?

What’s left that you won’t destroy.

I’m a socialist leaning guy, you my friend are a straight up hard line communist.

Anarchist, not communist.

Oppose anything that has or seeks power over others, including the state (though at the moment corporations have become more of a threat than states).

So my ideal with housing is that everybody owns a single property where they reside. And the state has simple mechanisms in place to enforce that (obscene levels of tax to prevent, with a couple of time-specific allowances re changes to the composition household units)

 

[monkeybarry]

I don't think we need more houses. There's not exactly significant levels of homelessness per se. It's some redistribution of ownership that's long overdue.

Primarily though we need to get the value of houses down to its usual standard of 3x average salary, down from the ridiculous 13x that it is now. That would bring it in reach much more of that bottom 40% of society who currently have to rent.

I agree with all of that except no need for more housing.
With prices reduction comes increased ability to afford more space, so more will be able to live in their own, more will leave relationships they are financially trapped in, housesharing will see less people per dwelling.

 

[ShipOfTheseus]

Anarchist, not communist.

Oppose anything that has or seeks power over others, including the state (though at the moment corporations have become more of a threat than states).

So my ideal with housing is that everybody owns a single property where they reside. And the state has simple mechanisms in place to enforce that (obscene levels of tax to prevent, with a couple of time-specific allowances re changes to the composition household units)

I’d rather break bread with an anarcho-leftist than an anarcho-libertarian, but at least the latter group’s positions are intellectually coherent, which is more than can be said for the above.

 

[monkeybarry]

Do you own your home?
Should you ever decide to sell it will you sell it for the same price you bought it for?
If not thats a profit.
you're on very shaky ground, basically saying anyone that ever bought a house and sold it is morally and ethically wrong.

No strictly true, it's a loss.
If you adjust the price for inflation, then it's a break even.
The housing market has seen decades of above inflation rises - that's profit.
Of course that raises the complexity of price Vs wage inflation too.
There is no exact parity, but pinning it to the standard UK inflation measure is as close as you'll get currently.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

The ironic thing from the Governments (blue or red) POV it's all very well deregulating the finance systems, allowing loose lending and keeping interest rates artificially low all in the name of house price inflation and making us all feel wealthy BUT that has been the cause of the new generation increasing the rental sector because of affordability issues, it's their only choice.

I say ironic as if this continues, a lifetime renter has no property of their own when they retire (and will of found it hard to save) so will lean on social housing in retirement PLUS will be completely reliant on the government for old age care having no asset to sell to fund it.

 

[monkeybarry]

if only 20% of housing is in the private rented sector, a significant amount of which is to people on benefits - previously housing benefits- but now universal credit, where do you get the 40% from?

Also good luck in convincing the population that their biggest asset should be reduced in value by 80 odd %.
That would lead to a recession that would make the 1930s seem like the time of milk and honey.

Depends at what point the number of voters with no home owning prospects outstrips the boomers.

That's why Tory rhetoric today is back on the "buy your council house" angle - to try and get the working class vote and create a pincer movement on the "younger middle class".

 

[Gutter Boy]

I agree with all of that except no need for more housing.
With prices reduction comes increased ability to afford more space, so more will be able to live in their own, more will leave relationships they are financially trapped in, housesharing will see less people per dwelling.

The population will soon start decreasing. Birth rates/female emancipation has been at that level for a while, but post-Brexit immigration controls should start to see it actually happen. That should hopefully provide the balance, and just allow focus on brownfield and poor quality housing renewal.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

Anarchist, not communist.

Oppose anything that has or seeks power over others, including the state

Love this. It is what I believe. Always like your political posts.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

Depends at what point the number of voters with no home owning prospects outstrips the boomers.

That's why Tory rhetoric today is back on the "buy your council house" angle - to try and get the working class vote and create a pincer movement on the "younger middle class".

This is what I was getting at on my posts on the subject. It is cynical and not done for the greater good but it might just work.

I was voting Labour at the next election unless the was a policy of going back in the EU. But I might just vote for them even if they did.

Would like to see more long term planning from our government.

 

[DTA]

Anarchist, not communist.

Oppose anything that has or seeks power over others, including the state (though at the moment corporations have become more of a threat than states).

So my ideal with housing is that everybody owns a single property where they reside. And the state has simple mechanisms in place to enforce that (obscene levels of tax to prevent, with a couple of time-specific allowances re changes to the composition household units)

I think you don’t know anarchism means if you want to control markets by severe taxation. Either that or spelt communism wrong.

Seriously what you are proposing is communist thinking - not socialist - I would describe myself as a socialist leaning liberal - and definitely not anarchism- do you even know what anarchism is?