Strange logic

Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Pages:
1
2
3
4
5

Strange logic
Topic Started: Dec 3 2014, 07:11 PM (1,746 Views)
Alberich	Dec 3 2014, 07:11 PM Post #1
Alberich Posts: 1,695 Group: Members Member #8 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Watching the news tonight, I was somewhat surprised at the thrust of one of the news items. It appears that a number of hospital trusts are being fined by the government because they are treating too many patients at their A. and E. departments. The government's argument is, apparently, that they want to reduce the numbers being treated at accident and emergency departments to some notional figure last seen some years ago, and if Trusts cannot reduce the numbers being treated, they are being heavily penalised. Accepting that nearly all NHS trusts are short of cash, and accepting that they can hardly start to turn emergency cases away as they arrive, this seems a strange method of trying to reduce the numbers arriving. Hospitals react to a given situation. They themselves are hardly in a position to dictate how many emergencies they will face in any given period, and they cannot curtail the numbers they are expected to treat....at least, not by any method that would be acceptable. It would make more sense if(say) the GPs contracts were revised, so that evenings and weekends had GP cover, than to penalise hospital trusts for doing what would appear to be their unavoidable duty. Or am I missing something?

Replies:
Affa	Dec 10 2014, 05:55 PM Post #121
Senior Member Posts: 11,999 Group: Members Member #58 Joined: Jul 26, 2014	RJD Dec 10 2014, 05:01 PM Now for some perspective: Dennis Healy took 1 year to but the Public Sector budget by 3.9% and it is taking George Osborne 6 years to cut is by 4.3%. There are always extenuating circumstances for how data records appear .. the OBR is guilty of ignoring circumstance in its desire to improve Government's image. A waste of time and tax payers money that produced a false perspective entirely. It was after the Barber boom, when inflation at over 20% was forcing up running costs and expenditure. It was not an over sized public sector, period! And it was inflation falling to below 10% that helped get costs under control. The comparison is BS. (Done to amuse ACH) Edited by Affa, Dec 10 2014, 06:04 PM.



Tigger	Dec 10 2014, 07:20 PM Post #122
Senior Member Posts: 20,106 Group: Members Member #18 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Steve K Dec 10 2014, 05:42 PM AndyK Dec 10 2014, 03:25 PM We already have the highest property taxes in Europe and the highest in the OECD-10. I'd be more in favour of local income taxes. I believe that's only if you include that evil tax on people moving called stamp duty. That I'd get rid off, it discourages mobility in the workforce Well you'll need to bring in rent and price controls for the property market because past experience has shown that when you factor out taxes or any other form of back door restraint the "market" quickly adds the saving to the asking price, I had a conversation with a site agent along similar lines this very afternoon. A nice little house price spike just before the GE is what this is all about. The end result though is the punter is no better off and a form of useful taxation is lost. And this is precisely what Osborne had in mind. Edited by Tigger, Dec 10 2014, 07:21 PM.



RJD	Dec 11 2014, 09:01 AM Post #123
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Affa Dec 10 2014, 05:35 PM Does anyone still believe that the OBR is Independent? Why on earth would they produce this chart going back to the seventies unless it was as propaganda for this this Coalition? We have a tax payer funded government department with the single purpose of making the Chancellor look good - and failing! Me thinks you are looking for excuses, the OBR is the source of the data not the creator of the graphic.



ACH1967	Dec 11 2014, 09:08 AM Post #124
Senior Member Posts: 4,226 Group: Members Member #56 Joined: Jul 24, 2014	Affa Dec 10 2014, 05:55 PM RJD Dec 10 2014, 05:01 PM Now for some perspective: Dennis Healy took 1 year to but the Public Sector budget by 3.9% and it is taking George Osborne 6 years to cut is by 4.3%. There are always extenuating circumstances for how data records appear .. the OBR is guilty of ignoring circumstance in its desire to improve Government's image. A waste of time and tax payers money that produced a false perspective entirely. It was after the Barber boom, when inflation at over 20% was forcing up running costs and expenditure. It was not an over sized public sector, period! And it was inflation falling to below 10% that helped get costs under control. The comparison is BS. (Done to amuse ACH) It did. And I think I'll recant my criticism of you having no comprehension too.



Affa	Dec 11 2014, 12:44 PM Post #125
Senior Member Posts: 11,999 Group: Members Member #58 Joined: Jul 26, 2014	ACH1967 Dec 11 2014, 09:08 AM I'll recant my criticism of you having no comprehension too. On the contrary, it is by having the ability to look beyond the spin and comprehend it's misdirection that I am able to call it BS. I am however grateful that it did present the opportunity to draw attention to the Boom & Bust (Barber boom) mentality defining all Tory Chancellors and the damage they do. Edited by Affa, Dec 11 2014, 12:48 PM.



RJD	Dec 11 2014, 03:15 PM Post #126
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Affa Dec 11 2014, 12:44 PM ACH1967 Dec 11 2014, 09:08 AM I'll recant my criticism of you having no comprehension too. On the contrary, it is by having the ability to look beyond the spin and comprehend it's misdirection that I am able to call it BS. I am however grateful that it did present the opportunity to draw attention to the Boom & Bust (Barber boom) mentality defining all Tory Chancellors and the damage they do. Certainly was not the context. The comparison was what a Labour Chancellor achieved in 1 year as opposed to what Osborne has in plan over 6 years, a target that many on the left would prefer that is deferred for eternity. It can be done if there is a will to do such, but todays Politicians are not made of the same stuff as the likes of Healy. We could have had the deficit behind us by 2016 had Osborne not heeded the perpetual whingers. We could be looking forward to increases in Tax Thresholds and a removal of that job destroying wage depressing tax, namely Employers NI. Not to mention VAT. But the whingers screamed at every miserable little cut and as a consequence, as I predicted, the pain drags on and will ultimately cost us a lot more.



Affa	Dec 11 2014, 09:57 PM Post #127
Senior Member Posts: 11,999 Group: Members Member #58 Joined: Jul 26, 2014	RJD Dec 11 2014, 03:15 PM Affa Dec 11 2014, 12:44 PM ACH1967 Dec 11 2014, 09:08 AM I'll recant my criticism of you having no comprehension too. On the contrary, it is by having the ability to look beyond the spin and comprehend it's misdirection that I am able to call it BS. I am however grateful that it did present the opportunity to draw attention to the Boom & Bust (Barber boom) mentality defining all Tory Chancellors and the damage they do. Certainly was not the context. The comparison was what a Labour Chancellor achieved in 1 year as opposed to what Osborne has in plan over 6 years, a target that many on the left would prefer that is deferred for eternity. Not a comparison of like circumstances, nor even similar problems = no comparison at all. And Labour aim to reduce the deficit every year making your other (irrelevant) effort of diversion and obfuscation as also being BS.



RJD	Dec 12 2014, 08:40 AM Post #128
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Affa Dec 11 2014, 09:57 PM RJD Dec 11 2014, 03:15 PM Affa Dec 11 2014, 12:44 PM ACH1967 Dec 11 2014, 09:08 AM I'll recant my criticism of you having no comprehension too. On the contrary, it is by having the ability to look beyond the spin and comprehend it's misdirection that I am able to call it BS. I am however grateful that it did present the opportunity to draw attention to the Boom & Bust (Barber boom) mentality defining all Tory Chancellors and the damage they do. Certainly was not the context. The comparison was what a Labour Chancellor achieved in 1 year as opposed to what Osborne has in plan over 6 years, a target that many on the left would prefer that is deferred for eternity. Not a comparison of like circumstances, nor even similar problems = no comparison at all. And Labour aim to reduce the deficit every year making your other (irrelevant) effort of diversion and obfuscation as also being BS. But it is. I did not claim that the initial condition were the same and only pointed to the magnitude of cuts to the Public Sector. I did not even refer to which sectors of the Public Sector were cut only noting that Labour are the only Gov. to ever have cut into that sacred cow the NHS. So yes in terms of magnitudes of cutting over a period of time the comparisons are valid. Labour have not said by how much or even buy how they intend to cut into the deficit or even what the word means to them, which you claim either does not exist or is irrelevant. As a consequence one could conclude that Milliband like yourself has his head firmly planted in the sand. There is only one question for you; "do you think that borrowing money to fuel current consumption is morally acceptable"? If so why?



krugerman	Dec 12 2014, 09:46 AM Post #129
Regular Member Posts: 1,152 Group: Members Member #11 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	The economic argument here is that the deficit MUST be put right as soon as possible, making cuts and slashing budgets to achieve targets over 4 or 5 years, returning to a budget surplus as quickly as possible. But no, it most certainly does not have to be this way, and any economist of worth looking at the facts will tell you that we do not have rush to close the deficit. The current chancellor has misled and deceived the British public in so many ways, by scare stories of Britain facing a Greek style meltdown unless we make major cuts now, and the actual reality is that UK bond yields have fallen since 2007 (in other words the financial markets are not concerned about the UK ability to solve its debt problem). The chancellor told us that unless we follow HIS course, we would lose our top credit rating, we followed his course and lost it, due to fears about his economic plan. There is no evidence anywhere that attempting to mend the deficit as soon as possible is the only solution, indeed in 2010 the Labour chancellor Alistair Darling put together a defecit reduction plan to be implemented over 2 Parliaments, a pace much slower than Osborne, intended to let growth (which was allready looking good in April 2010) establish itself and for the return of growth to spread across all areas of the economy. So where is this law of economics that closing the deficit is a race ? Why put the people and communities through so much hardship if there s another way of doing things, and with interest on UK debt at a record low, why not take advantage and reduce the deficit in a less painful way. The debt interest as a percentage of our GDP is relatively low, the bond markets are certainly not worried, its not a pending disaster nor a ticking time bomb, as long as the deficit is been repaired, at whatever or whichever pace, then thats fine.



Affa	Dec 12 2014, 09:52 AM Post #130
Senior Member Posts: 11,999 Group: Members Member #58 Joined: Jul 26, 2014	The UK deficit has been higher than it is today a number of times, the last time under John Major ....... it was never previously made out to be a crisis situation as it is now, and the reductions followed quickly without resorting to harsh austerity - we are spoon fed BS.



krugerman	Dec 12 2014, 10:08 AM Post #131
Regular Member Posts: 1,152 Group: Members Member #11 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	At of the begining of the recession, uk budget deficit was lower than when John Major left office, yet Labour are the party of borrowing. Admitedly borrowing did shoot up when the recession hit, just as it did under Norman Lamont in the recession of the early 90s, except of course this last recession was a potential catastrophe as against a storm in a teacup, but according to the government "it was all Labours fault". Its the hypocrisy and deception that makes me most angry about the coalition, and to think that Nick Clegg, Vince Cable and every other Lib Dem were warning about making too many cuts, too quickly and too deeply - funny how they changed their minds.



Pro Veritas	Dec 12 2014, 10:09 AM Post #132
Upstanding Member Posts: 7,030 Group: Admins Member #19 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	I see nothing wrong with seeking to close the deficit-gap as soon as possible; and I care not about the alleged "laws of economics". My problem with the coalition is that the policies they are enacting are specifically making it harder to cut the deficit by reducing the tax-take and increasing in-work welfare spending. In fact one would be hard pressed to find a set of policies less conducive to deficit reduction. The bedrock if reducing the deficit is increasing the tax-take and reducing benefit spending. That means higher wages. All The Best



krugerman	Dec 12 2014, 10:21 AM Post #133
Regular Member Posts: 1,152 Group: Members Member #11 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Pro Veritas Dec 12 2014, 10:09 AM I see nothing wrong with seeking to close the deficit-gap as soon as possible; and I care not about the alleged "laws of economics". My problem with the coalition is that the policies they are enacting are specifically making it harder to cut the deficit by reducing the tax-take and increasing in-work welfare spending. In fact one would be hard pressed to find a set of policies less conducive to deficit reduction. The bedrock if reducing the deficit is increasing the tax-take and reducing benefit spending. That means higher wages. All The Best I have actually argued that taxes as a method of repairing the deficit is a tool at the disposal of the government which is virtually unused. I personally believe that all tools and methods should be used in closing the gap, and the favourable thing about using taxation is that its relatively fair, with those on the lowest incomes paying nothing, whilst those on modest incomes pay a modest proportion, and of course those with the highest incomes pay a higher proportion. It seems that where once it was ok to put a penny on income tax, even though it wasent very popular, today it seems sacred, we cannot possibly even consider increasing income taxes, and as argued in another post somewhere, what about asset taxes ?, land for development, second homes, very high value property - why not. ?



Affa	Dec 12 2014, 11:27 AM Post #134
Senior Member Posts: 11,999 Group: Members Member #58 Joined: Jul 26, 2014	Pro Veritas Dec 12 2014, 10:09 AM I see nothing wrong with seeking to close the deficit-gap as soon as possible; and I care not about the alleged "laws of economics". My problem with the coalition is that the policies they are enacting are specifically making it harder to cut the deficit by reducing the tax-take and increasing in-work welfare spending. In fact one would be hard pressed to find a set of policies less conducive to deficit reduction. The bedrock if reducing the deficit is increasing the tax-take and reducing benefit spending. That means higher wages. All The Best I am convinced that there has been no attempt to reduce the deficit, to balance the budget, despite these being declared as the prime objectives. Having the deficit is made the reason why austerity measures are needed (falsely) and it must be obvious now that austerity measures, the imposition of low wages and cuts to public services are what this Chancellor is all about. Austerity measures have made reducing the deficit more difficult, have delayed recovery, are hurting the economy. Treason is being an agent of a foreign nation. It is treasonous to be an agent of a foreign entity, the International corporate empire that Osborne serves to the detriment of the electorate here.



Tytoalba	Dec 12 2014, 11:29 AM Post #135
Senior Member Posts: 7,586 Group: Members Member #36 Joined: Jun 29, 2014	Affa Dec 10 2014, 01:38 AM Tytoalba Dec 9 2014, 11:25 PM If we put aside our party politics, perhaps no government would have succeeded in doing so, without raising taxes, direct or indirect, or by cutting drastically public spending. Perhaps that is the only real answer for all of us to accept. Simply , our annual rise in GDP is not being matched by the rise in the GDP per person, in other words we are all getting poorer in real terms, as statistics are tending to prove or as Labour claim. I don't think any government or party has the answer to our current problems or any government is going to produce the solutions by offering more, or fiddling with the figures. The positive solutions are all unpopular, and therefore blameworthy for the opposition to make political capital out of, be they right or left of politics, so it seems unlikely to happen, and we continue to blunder on. First off, to attempt to ignore party politics in this is not going to happen - they are all going to exploit where they can ........ often unfairly, and more often falsely. You come close to realising what needs to happen, even though you somehow dismiss that it can happen - the country has to utilise its resources and potential and return to prosperity - growth! Despite going the austerity rout to reduce the deficit, a policy that chokes off growth, the Chancellor when he finally did invest and saw some growth was very quick to go public and tell that this growth would eventually balance the economy. Growth will do it without the need to raise the tax burden - it just needs more tax payers (fewer on benefits) and jobs that pay a wage where taxes become due. Growth where business turnovers increase, profits increase, and corporation taxes exceed the miserable 7% of income they currently contribute to the treasury. Having created over a million more jobs and seeing no increase in tax revenue isn't success! It is for those that have gained employment and the self confidence and sense of wellbeing that goes with it, and reduced their burden on the state, which itself is equivalent to the tax gain. Every little helps.



papasmurf	Dec 12 2014, 11:34 AM Post #136
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Tytoalba Dec 12 2014, 11:29 AM It is for those that have gained employment and the self confidence and sense of wellbeing that goes with it, and reduced their burden on the state, which itself is equivalent to the tax gain. Every little helps. Good grief, are you quoting from the propaganda manual?



ACH1967	Dec 12 2014, 11:37 AM Post #137
Senior Member Posts: 4,226 Group: Members Member #56 Joined: Jul 24, 2014	Pro Veritas Dec 12 2014, 10:09 AM I see nothing wrong with seeking to close the deficit-gap as soon as possible; and I care not about the alleged "laws of economics". My problem with the coalition is that the policies they are enacting are specifically making it harder to cut the deficit by reducing the tax-take and increasing in-work welfare spending. In fact one would be hard pressed to find a set of policies less conducive to deficit reduction. The bedrock if reducing the deficit is increasing the tax-take and reducing benefit spending. That means higher wages. All The Best What is your proposal for higher wages?



RJD	Dec 12 2014, 12:02 PM Post #138
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	papasmurf Dec 12 2014, 11:34 AM Tytoalba Dec 12 2014, 11:29 AM It is for those that have gained employment and the self confidence and sense of wellbeing that goes with it, and reduced their burden on the state, which itself is equivalent to the tax gain. Every little helps. Good grief, are you quoting from the propaganda manual? Are you claiming that a job on the NMW plus in-wqork credits is worth less to an individual than JSA? I think not. Not only that you have no proposals for strategies to increase the lot of those that we consider to be poor. A life on welfare is not to be recommended for those that are fit and able to work, but appears to be your preference.



RJD	Dec 12 2014, 12:03 PM Post #139
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	ACH1967 Dec 12 2014, 11:37 AM Pro Veritas Dec 12 2014, 10:09 AM I see nothing wrong with seeking to close the deficit-gap as soon as possible; and I care not about the alleged "laws of economics". My problem with the coalition is that the policies they are enacting are specifically making it harder to cut the deficit by reducing the tax-take and increasing in-work welfare spending. In fact one would be hard pressed to find a set of policies less conducive to deficit reduction. The bedrock if reducing the deficit is increasing the tax-take and reducing benefit spending. That means higher wages. All The Best What is your proposal for higher wages? They have none.



Tytoalba	Dec 12 2014, 12:21 PM Post #140
Senior Member Posts: 7,586 Group: Members Member #36 Joined: Jun 29, 2014	papasmurf Dec 12 2014, 11:34 AM Tytoalba Dec 12 2014, 11:29 AM It is for those that have gained employment and the self confidence and sense of wellbeing that goes with it, and reduced their burden on the state, which itself is equivalent to the tax gain. Every little helps. Good grief, are you quoting from the propaganda manual? Yours or mine.? I'm not involved in events like you appear to be. I am an observer past my use by date , using my right to free speech and expression as is my right. I don't subscribe to your personal shibboleths. I am not my brothers keeper like you, and it is fanciful to believe that I can be.



Tytoalba	Dec 12 2014, 12:26 PM Post #141
Senior Member Posts: 7,586 Group: Members Member #36 Joined: Jun 29, 2014	ACH1967 Dec 12 2014, 11:37 AM Pro Veritas Dec 12 2014, 10:09 AM I see nothing wrong with seeking to close the deficit-gap as soon as possible; and I care not about the alleged "laws of economics". My problem with the coalition is that the policies they are enacting are specifically making it harder to cut the deficit by reducing the tax-take and increasing in-work welfare spending. In fact one would be hard pressed to find a set of policies less conducive to deficit reduction. The bedrock if reducing the deficit is increasing the tax-take and reducing benefit spending. That means higher wages. All The Best What is your proposal for higher wages? Pay more , and reduce the value of the currency, leading price rises and make our goods and services harder to sell in the market place, ending up in making no difference at all. Of course all social service benefits will have to rise with inflation, creating the need for higher taxes , and so the spiral continues with no reduction in the debt.



Tigger	Dec 12 2014, 12:38 PM Post #142
Senior Member Posts: 20,106 Group: Members Member #18 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Pro Veritas Dec 12 2014, 10:09 AM That means higher wages. No, we can't afford that because the higher wages will end up in the back pockets of rent seekers and asset holders. We are then back to square one again. We need asset price deflation to rebalance real world earnings with those sacred asset prices. It either happens or Britain prices itself out of the global marketplace and returns to a semi feudal version of Victorian England with London a sort of financial Disneyland.



papasmurf	Dec 12 2014, 12:58 PM Post #143
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Tytoalba Dec 12 2014, 12:21 PM I am not my brothers keeper . Neither am I, they are both dead.



Pro Veritas	Dec 12 2014, 02:15 PM Post #144
Upstanding Member Posts: 7,030 Group: Admins Member #19 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Tigger Dec 12 2014, 12:38 PM Pro Veritas Dec 12 2014, 10:09 AM That means higher wages. No, we can't afford that because the higher wages will end up in the back pockets of rent seekers and asset holders. We are then back to square one again. We need asset price deflation to rebalance real world earnings with those sacred asset prices. It either happens or Britain prices itself out of the global marketplace and returns to a semi feudal version of Victorian England with London a sort of financial Disneyland. I should have been more specific and said that "that means a rebalancing of the cost of living", increased wages being just one side of that equation. For that lack of clarity I do apologise. The other side being asset price management. I'd start with reintroducing rent-control across the whole country, I'd look at our European neighbours for further inspiration within the rental market by giving tenants more rights, and more security. I'd then look at utility prices and introduce increase caps so that over a period of 5-10 years we move from approximately 30% of the population being in fuel-poverty to less than 3%. Energy companies could easily afford this if they stopped doling out dividend payments as a matter of course, and only issued them when the company was truly performing well (and by "well" I mean in a sustainable manner). We then need to rethink CAP and how that grossly inflates food prices (sorry to contradict Steve in another thread, but this little bit of European-globalisation has increased food prices by approx 20%, not decreased then as he suggests). If necessary (and it should be a total last resort) I'd introduce price controls on food staples. Companies that continually pay dividends when only making marginal profits have no excuse for complaining that prices controls would affect their ability to turn a profit. A share-dividend is something that should happen when the investment is working well, it is NOT an automatic right. Finally, shareholders of all such companies need to be made fully aware that when such a company is in trouble they are the first port of call for raising further revenue - NOT the public at large, and certainly not the taxpayer via government intervention. Being a shareholder means holding a share of the liability too. All The Best



ACH1967	Dec 12 2014, 02:33 PM Post #145
Senior Member Posts: 4,226 Group: Members Member #56 Joined: Jul 24, 2014	Nice Response, Good starting point. If we could discuss this point by point I stand a chance of learning something. So if we reintroduced rent controls on the pros side this would make housing more affordable. What would the likely negative effects be?



RJD	Dec 12 2014, 04:09 PM Post #146
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Tytoalba Dec 12 2014, 12:21 PM papasmurf Dec 12 2014, 11:34 AM Tytoalba Dec 12 2014, 11:29 AM It is for those that have gained employment and the self confidence and sense of wellbeing that goes with it, and reduced their burden on the state, which itself is equivalent to the tax gain. Every little helps. Good grief, are you quoting from the propaganda manual? Yours or mine.? I'm not involved in events like you appear to be. I am an observer past my use by date , using my right to free speech and expression as is my right. I don't subscribe to your personal shibboleths. I am not my brothers keeper like you, and it is fanciful to believe that I can be. I do not mind being my brother's keeper as long as such is in the family.



Pro Veritas	Dec 12 2014, 04:51 PM Post #147
Upstanding Member Posts: 7,030 Group: Admins Member #19 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	ACH1967 Dec 12 2014, 02:33 PM Nice Response, Good starting point. If we could discuss this point by point I stand a chance of learning something. So if we reintroduced rent controls on the pros side this would make housing more affordable. What would the likely negative effects be? There is so much wrong caused by the overheating of the housing market that I am genuinely unable to find a single downside to the introduction of rent controls. The plusses from doing so are 1) a general cooling of the rental market, 2) making B2L less attractive so also applying downward pressure on the buying side of the housing market, 3) both of which lead to more income becoming disposable which then helps stimulate the wider economy, 4) taking more people in the rental market away from needing Housing Benefit, 5) making buying more affordable and so reducing pressure even further on the rental market, 6) incentivising those people involved in land-banking to start using that land before the market drops so low they make a loss on the land, 7) which increases supply and so applies even further downward pressure on housing prices. All of which are long, long, long overdue if we hope to rebalance the economy to a point of sustainability less inclined toward boom and bust. There honestly isn't a single downside for 95% of the population. Which is why it will never happen; because the 5% who will lose out are the ones who pull the strings on the puppets in Westminster. All The Best



RJD	Dec 12 2014, 05:19 PM Post #148
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Do you not remember what happened last time we tried this? Well investment in building new properties declined rapidly. I have known a number of people who tried their hand in this sector and the experience is that it is hard work to make a decent profit when one takes into consideration the costs of maintenance, lost income through none payment. The gains are made, notionally, by revaluations in the net worth of the assets and it is this that acts as a lever for further investments. Slap rent controls onto this market and you will see the market respond with higher initial rents, larger guarantees and probably a decline in space to be let, namely more Rabbit Hutches. In 2008 many of these highly leveraged businesses went bust and I can hear the auto response "serves the right". Local Gov. can only provide affordable properties for rent if these are subsidised through the Council Tax system and last time around this p155ed a lot of people.



Affa	Dec 12 2014, 06:00 PM Post #149
Senior Member Posts: 11,999 Group: Members Member #58 Joined: Jul 26, 2014	It needs repeating - the Osborne plan for a balanced economy sets the balance point a long way below where it once was. If a balance is achieved through austerity it will be with public services at bare minimum standard and living standards much lower than they are now and far below where they were in 2010. I would not call that a success ..... though Osborne undoubtedly would.



Tytoalba	Dec 12 2014, 06:40 PM Post #150
Senior Member Posts: 7,586 Group: Members Member #36 Joined: Jun 29, 2014	ACH1967 Dec 12 2014, 02:33 PM Nice Response, Good starting point. If we could discuss this point by point I stand a chance of learning something. So if we reintroduced rent controls on the pros side this would make housing more affordable. What would the likely negative effects be? You first need to decide what a reasonable return on an investment in property should be. As a simple example, assume the cost of a property to be £100,000 .There will be expenses to pay in maintaining the property insuring and servicing it. and paying tax on profits. So what is a reasonable return taking all factors into account? ! would suggest that 7% is about right , taking into account possible property prices or allowing for a collapse in value That is £580 PCM or £134 a week. Supply and demand and market forces will decide the price., interfering with it across the country will just make things more complicated, increase bureaucracy and dry up the market. I present again Kipling's The Gods of the copybook headings.



Pro Veritas	Dec 12 2014, 06:58 PM Post #151
Upstanding Member Posts: 7,030 Group: Admins Member #19 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	RJD Dec 12 2014, 05:19 PM Do you not remember what happened last time we tried this? Yeah. We had affordable and relatively plentiful social housing. We had a private rental sector that did not gouge the consumer. Private renters rarely had to rely in housing benefit to make ends meet, so the welfare bill was not unduly increased. We had a housing market that was, by and large, healthy and sustainable. And because of a change of housing market pressures we didn't lurch from boom to bust and collapse quite so often, or so violently. Can't for one second think why anybody would want that again, can you? All The Best Edited by Pro Veritas, Dec 12 2014, 06:58 PM.



AndyK	Dec 12 2014, 07:47 PM Post #152
Senior Member Posts: 2,474 Group: Members Member #69 Joined: Aug 11, 2014	Tytoalba Dec 12 2014, 12:26 PM ACH1967 Dec 12 2014, 11:37 AM Pro Veritas Dec 12 2014, 10:09 AM I see nothing wrong with seeking to close the deficit-gap as soon as possible; and I care not about the alleged "laws of economics". My problem with the coalition is that the policies they are enacting are specifically making it harder to cut the deficit by reducing the tax-take and increasing in-work welfare spending. In fact one would be hard pressed to find a set of policies less conducive to deficit reduction. The bedrock if reducing the deficit is increasing the tax-take and reducing benefit spending. That means higher wages. All The Best What is your proposal for higher wages? Pay more , and reduce the value of the currency, leading price rises and make our goods and services harder to sell in the market place, ending up in making no difference at all. Of course all social service benefits will have to rise with inflation, creating the need for higher taxes , and so the spiral continues with no reduction in the debt. The debt won't reduce but inflation can rendered it worthless. That's how we got rid of the war debt.



Montjoie	Dec 12 2014, 09:05 PM Post #153
Regular Member Posts: 1,205 Group: Members Member #7 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	AndyK Dec 12 2014, 07:47 PM Tytoalba Dec 12 2014, 12:26 PM ACH1967 Dec 12 2014, 11:37 AM Pro Veritas Dec 12 2014, 10:09 AM I see nothing wrong with seeking to close the deficit-gap as soon as possible; and I care not about the alleged "laws of economics". My problem with the coalition is that the policies they are enacting are specifically making it harder to cut the deficit by reducing the tax-take and increasing in-work welfare spending. In fact one would be hard pressed to find a set of policies less conducive to deficit reduction. The bedrock if reducing the deficit is increasing the tax-take and reducing benefit spending. That means higher wages. All The Best What is your proposal for higher wages? Pay more , and reduce the value of the currency, leading price rises and make our goods and services harder to sell in the market place, ending up in making no difference at all. Of course all social service benefits will have to rise with inflation, creating the need for higher taxes , and so the spiral continues with no reduction in the debt. The debt won't reduce but inflation can rendered it worthless. That's how we got rid of the war debt. If any country could print its way out of debt, none would be in debt. It requires a true expansion of the activity to make inflation a workable solution. Post war reconstruction, access to cheap energy (oil & gas), women becoming active, demographics, better access to health were all oriented in a favorable direction which required inflation to keep up with the pace. Only in this case it is indeed possible. Edited by Montjoie, Dec 12 2014, 09:05 PM.



Tigger	Dec 12 2014, 09:31 PM Post #154
Senior Member Posts: 20,106 Group: Members Member #18 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	ACH1967 Dec 12 2014, 02:33 PM Nice Response, Good starting point. If we could discuss this point by point I stand a chance of learning something. So if we reintroduced rent controls on the pros side this would make housing more affordable. What would the likely negative effects be? Having been in the building industry for over thirty years I can tell you the first response of the major developers to price controls or rent caps would be the deliberate contraction of further building to keep prices elevated, we are even seeing signs of this now with scare stories about a lack of bricklayers! The industry, like so many other major industries in this country has failed societies needs. The solution is for the state to take charge as it did in the late forties and fifties, the state becomes the largest property developer, it worked then and it will work now. With far less automation and less machinery build rates in this period were approximately twice today's numbers. The only people who will "suffer" are property speculators and those who live off of rent money, the country in return will see aspiration return to millions of low paid workers who will no longer face a working life paying off someone else's mortgage.



Tigger	Dec 12 2014, 09:32 PM Post #155
Senior Member Posts: 20,106 Group: Members Member #18 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Pro Veritas Dec 12 2014, 02:15 PM Tigger Dec 12 2014, 12:38 PM Pro Veritas Dec 12 2014, 10:09 AM That means higher wages. No, we can't afford that because the higher wages will end up in the back pockets of rent seekers and asset holders. We are then back to square one again. We need asset price deflation to rebalance real world earnings with those sacred asset prices. It either happens or Britain prices itself out of the global marketplace and returns to a semi feudal version of Victorian England with London a sort of financial Disneyland. I should have been more specific and said that "that means a rebalancing of the cost of living", increased wages being just one side of that equation. For that lack of clarity I do apologise. The other side being asset price management. I'd start with reintroducing rent-control across the whole country, I'd look at our European neighbours for further inspiration within the rental market by giving tenants more rights, and more security. I'd then look at utility prices and introduce increase caps so that over a period of 5-10 years we move from approximately 30% of the population being in fuel-poverty to less than 3%. Energy companies could easily afford this if they stopped doling out dividend payments as a matter of course, and only issued them when the company was truly performing well (and by "well" I mean in a sustainable manner). We then need to rethink CAP and how that grossly inflates food prices (sorry to contradict Steve in another thread, but this little bit of European-globalisation has increased food prices by approx 20%, not decreased then as he suggests). If necessary (and it should be a total last resort) I'd introduce price controls on food staples. Companies that continually pay dividends when only making marginal profits have no excuse for complaining that prices controls would affect their ability to turn a profit. A share-dividend is something that should happen when the investment is working well, it is NOT an automatic right. Finally, shareholders of all such companies need to be made fully aware that when such a company is in trouble they are the first port of call for raising further revenue - NOT the public at large, and certainly not the taxpayer via government intervention. Being a shareholder means holding a share of the liability too. All The Best Can't argue with much of that, persuading the vested interests in Parliament and at the top end of society will be the hard bit.



AndyK	Dec 12 2014, 09:36 PM Post #156
Senior Member Posts: 2,474 Group: Members Member #69 Joined: Aug 11, 2014	Montjoie Dec 12 2014, 09:05 PM AndyK Dec 12 2014, 07:47 PM Tytoalba Dec 12 2014, 12:26 PM ACH1967 Dec 12 2014, 11:37 AM Quoting limited to 4 levels deep Pay more , and reduce the value of the currency, leading price rises and make our goods and services harder to sell in the market place, ending up in making no difference at all. Of course all social service benefits will have to rise with inflation, creating the need for higher taxes , and so the spiral continues with no reduction in the debt. The debt won't reduce but inflation can rendered it worthless. That's how we got rid of the war debt. If any country could print its way out of debt, none would be in debt. It requires a true expansion of the activity to make inflation a workable solution. Post war reconstruction, access to cheap energy (oil & gas), women becoming active, demographics, better access to health were all oriented in a favorable direction which required inflation to keep up with the pace. Only in this case it is indeed possible. Nah, it was the 1970's decade of industrial unrest and 20% annual inflation that did the trick.



Tigger	Dec 12 2014, 09:37 PM Post #157
Senior Member Posts: 20,106 Group: Members Member #18 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Tytoalba Dec 12 2014, 06:40 PM ACH1967 Dec 12 2014, 02:33 PM Nice Response, Good starting point. If we could discuss this point by point I stand a chance of learning something. So if we reintroduced rent controls on the pros side this would make housing more affordable. What would the likely negative effects be? You first need to decide what a reasonable return on an investment in property should be. As a simple example, assume the cost of a property to be £100,000 .There will be expenses to pay in maintaining the property insuring and servicing it. and paying tax on profits. So what is a reasonable return taking all factors into account? ! would suggest that 7% is about right , taking into account possible property prices or allowing for a collapse in value That is £580 PCM or £134 a week. Supply and demand and market forces will decide the price., interfering with it across the country will just make things more complicated, increase bureaucracy and dry up the market. I present again Kipling's The Gods of the copybook headings. The private housing sector needs shoving out of the way, it has utterly failed to meet the needs of the nation and continually holds the nation to ransom, this has to be stopped. In just about every area of the economy demand causes a rise in supply which eventually results in lower prices, the exception in the housing market which is clearly rigged to buck this trend. Time for major reform.



Tigger	Dec 12 2014, 09:41 PM Post #158
Senior Member Posts: 20,106 Group: Members Member #18 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	RJD Dec 12 2014, 05:19 PM Do you not remember what happened last time we tried this? Yes, do you? For someone who frequently regales us of his tough upbringing in the fifties you seem remarkably unaware of the massive STATE INSPIRED building boom in this era. File under ignore the facts and trot out dogma by the dumper truck load.



Affa	Dec 12 2014, 09:49 PM Post #159
Senior Member Posts: 11,999 Group: Members Member #58 Joined: Jul 26, 2014	A genuine question - why are we still building red brick houses? Surely there are other technologies, other methods available (or could be) that are so much cheaper?



AndyK	Dec 12 2014, 09:57 PM Post #160
Senior Member Posts: 2,474 Group: Members Member #69 Joined: Aug 11, 2014	Affa Dec 12 2014, 09:49 PM A genuine question - why are we still building red brick houses? Surely there are other technologies, other methods available (or could be) that are so much cheaper? I doubt the American style of Timber housing would survive our damp climate. Mind you, when you see the devastation that storms cause out, they don't seem to survive their climate either. I have seen a lot of bench seats and fencing made out of recycled plastic milk bottles, perfect as a rot proof substitute for wood. You'd think these would find a use as a building material. and in Oz, they all seem to have metal roofs, tiled roofs are rare.



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3
4
5