Labour plants new money trees.........

[teflon2]

John52 - 2017-09-28 7:28 AM

 

Brian Kirby - 2017-09-27 7:30 PM

 

In truth, this is a perpetual argument, usually characterised as representing capital vs labour. The problem is that all developed countries need taxes, to on things that are of disputed value. However, in a civilised country (and even in quite a few uncivilised ones!) taxes seem inescapable, to provide for the common good. So, how much tax is needed and where from, and what should those taxes should be spent on. This debate, broadly, goes to the root of democracy. Answers on a postcard, please! :-D

 

Land Value Tax. Instead of discouraging work by taxing earned income, - tax unearned inherited income instead.

Land can't be hidden.. If they don't pay the tax, seize the land and the owners will soon appear from behind their shell companies in tax havens.

The land your house is on is the fastest rising value it would be like turkeys voting for Christmas. Here in Suffolk there are estates built at the present standard of 10 per acre they make miners terraces look like parks, you need a wake up call. John.?? . Sorry about the continuation but me computer's bust and this is on my tablet.

[Brian Kirby]

pelmetman - 2017-09-29 8:29 AM.................................The housing problem is mainly a London and South East issue, exacerbated by the EU open door migration policy *-) ..........

 

There's no shortage of property to rent here in Lincolnshire ;-) .........

I'm not so sure about your first point, Dave. Are you saying there is no housing problem outside the South East, because that is not what I hear and read?

 

As to migrants exacerbating the problem, of course they do, as does everyone who replaces more than themselves during their lifetimes. However, I thought there was supposed to be a major migrant problem in Lincolnshire? So, is Lincolnshire overrun with migrants, as you seem to have suggested previously, or are there not as many vacant properties as you are now claiming, or is your theory about property shortage and migrants a bit shaky? I'd like to meet some of the migrants who are living in London as, at London prices, I suspect they're just a little different to the average migrant! :-D

[Brian Kirby]

John52 - 2017-09-28 8:37 PM..........................No because the gap between building land prices and other land prices would narrow as more planning permissipn was given. Once building land prices started falling the landbankers would release their land on to the housing market because they would know the price isn't about to go up any more.

Just look at google maps satellite and see how much land could be built on - and what is a better use for it than housing the homeless? - Golf Courses *-) Wild Bird Habitat *-)

Alternatively, the land bankers would buy up the cheaper land and sit on it as they do now, since it adds to the asset value of their companies, against which they can borrow. Planning permission is only granted against proposed development. That is how the money is made. Buy up potentially developable land and then apply for permission, and then book the asset at its increased value. It might be more productive to tax planning permission, to incentivise actual building rather than land banking.

 

Uses for land? Agriculture? We already import mountains of food because we can't feed ourselves. That isn't sustainable in the longer term, and we have at times flirted with a paper thin margin of supply over demand. Divert more land from agriculture to building and roads, and we merely exacerbate the present shortage of food production, leaving ourselves even more dependent on imported food.

[Guest pelmetman]

Brian Kirby - 2017-09-29 7:20 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-09-29 8:29 AM.................................The housing problem is mainly a London and South East issue, exacerbated by the EU open door migration policy *-) ..........

 

There's no shortage of property to rent here in Lincolnshire ;-) .........

I'm not so sure about your first point, Dave. Are you saying there is no housing problem outside the South East, because that is not what I hear and read?

 

As to migrants exacerbating the problem, of course they do, as does everyone who replaces more than themselves during their lifetimes. However, I thought there was supposed to be a major migrant problem in Lincolnshire? So, is Lincolnshire overrun with migrants, as you seem to have suggested previously, or are there not as many vacant properties as you are now claiming, or is your theory about property shortage and migrants a bit shaky? I'd like to meet some of the migrants who are living in London as, at London prices, I suspect they're just a little different to the average migrant! :-D

 

I think you'll find migrants in London and elsewhere are mostly housed in HMO's, many of which are illegal ;-) .......

 

There's plenty of houses to rent in Boston as a quick check on Rightmove will confirm, and compared to rental down Souf dirt cheap :D .......

 

So as far as I'm concerned John52's housing crisis is very much a London & South East issue :D ........

 

But some good news.....London house prices are dropping >:-) .........

 

 

[Barryd999]

pelmetman - 2017-09-29 8:26 AM

 

Barryd999 - 2017-09-28 2:27 PM

 

The kids all love him now Rich anyway so what's the problem? :D

 

 

Yep you need to be either young and innocent or old and gullible or just plain stupid to believe in JC :D .......

 

 

Dave your confused. The last two are the Brexiteers. Are you saying they are all going to vote for Jezza? Should be a walk in the park for him then.

[Guest pelmetman]

Barryd999 - 2017-09-29 7:59 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-09-29 8:26 AM

 

Barryd999 - 2017-09-28 2:27 PM

 

The kids all love him now Rich anyway so what's the problem? :D

 

 

Yep you need to be either young and innocent or old and gullible or just plain stupid to believe in JC :D .......

 

 

Dave your confused. The last two are the Brexiteers. Are you saying they are all going to vote for Jezza? Should be a walk in the park for him then.

 

Rumour has it Corbyn voted to leave ;-) .........

 

 

[Archiesgrandad]

The stupidity of house prices, especially in the South East is probably due in the main to the combination of foolish people who are prepared to pay ridiculous prices for property, simply because they can, and in a big part by the stupidity of a social security system which allowed people who needed a home to find one in the private sector and Social Security would pay the rent, more or less regardless of how much it was. This enabled aspiring entrepreneurs to pay stupid prices for properties to rent out, with huge mortgages which they were confident would be paid by Social Security, and thus enable them to borrow more money to buy even more houses to rent out. This enabled people like a seventeen year old I know, who on finding that she was pregnant by the local tow-rag was able to move into a brand new 2 bedroomed flat, at a rent that she could never have paid if she had a job, where she was able to furnish it with money from Social Security, and live there whilst she aquired another 2 illegitimate children, which then entitled her to move into a 3 bedroom house, so that she then had room for the next 2 illegitimate children as well. Similarly refugees and the like were able to move into millionaire's houses paid for by social security. This simply encouraged people to buy houses on a buy to rent basis and become, on paper at least, millionaires funded by the tax payer. No government is willing to put a stop to this madness for fear of losing votes, so they will try ,over time, to reduce it's effect over time, but the money men will always be one step ahead of them .

AGD

[Archiesgrandad]

The stupidity of house prices, especially in the South East is probably due in the main to the combination of foolish people who are prepared to pay ridiculous prices for property, simply because they can, and in a big part by the stupidity of a social security system which allowed people who needed a home to find one in the private sector and Social Security would pay the rent, more or less regardless of how much it was. This enabled aspiring entrepreneurs to pay stupid prices for properties to rent out, with huge mortgages which they were confident would be paid by Social Security, and thus enable them to borrow more money to buy even more houses to rent out. This enabled people like a seventeen year old I know, who on finding that she was pregnant by the local tow-rag was able to move into a brand new 2 bedroomed flat, at a rent that she could never have paid if she had a job, where she was able to furnish it with money from Social Security, and live there whilst she aquired another 2 illegitimate children, which then entitled her to move into a 3 bedroom house, so that she then had room for the next 2 illegitimate children as well. Similarly refugees and the like were able to move into millionaire's houses paid for by social security. This simply encouraged people to buy houses on a buy to rent basis and become, on paper at least, millionaires funded by the tax payer. No government is willing to put a stop to this madness for fear of losing votes, so they will try ,over time, to reduce it's effect over time, but the money men will always be one step ahead of them .

AGD

[Archiesgrandad]

The stupidity of house prices, especially in the South East is probably due in the main to the combination of foolish people who are prepared to pay ridiculous prices for property, simply because they can, and in a big part by the stupidity of a social security system which allowed people who needed a home to find one in the private sector and Social Security would pay the rent, more or less regardless of how much it was. This enabled aspiring entrepreneurs to pay stupid prices for properties to rent out, with huge mortgages which they were confident would be paid by Social Security, and thus enable them to borrow more money to buy even more houses to rent out. This enabled people like a seventeen year old I know, who on finding that she was pregnant by the local tow-rag was able to move into a brand new 2 bedroomed flat, at a rent that she could never have paid if she had a job, where she was able to furnish it with money from Social Security, and live there whilst she aquired another 2 illegitimate children, which then entitled her to move into a 3 bedroom house, so that she then had room for the next 2 illegitimate children as well. Similarly refugees and the like were able to move into millionaire's houses paid for by social security. This simply encouraged people to buy houses on a buy to rent basis and become, on paper at least, millionaires funded by the tax payer. No government is willing to put a stop to this madness for fear of losing votes, so they will try ,over time, to reduce it's effect over time, but the money men will always be one step ahead of them .

AGD

[John52]

Brian Kirby - 2017-09-29 7:32 PM

 

John52 - 2017-09-28 8:37 PM..........................No because the gap between building land prices and other land prices would narrow as more planning permissipn was given. Once building land prices started falling the landbankers would release their land on to the housing market because they would know the price isn't about to go up any more.

Just look at google maps satellite and see how much land could be built on - and what is a better use for it than housing the homeless? - Golf Courses *-) Wild Bird Habitat *-)

Alternatively, the land bankers would buy up the cheaper land and sit on it as they do now, since it adds to the asset value of their companies, against which they can borrow. Planning permission is only granted against proposed development. That is how the money is made. Buy up potentially developable land and then apply for permission, and then book the asset at its increased value. It might be more productive to tax planning permission, to incentivise actual building rather than land banking.

 

Uses for land? Agriculture? We already import mountains of food because we can't feed ourselves. That isn't sustainable in the longer term, and we have at times flirted with a paper thin margin of supply over demand. Divert more land from agriculture to building and roads, and we merely exacerbate the present shortage of food production, leaving ourselves even more dependent on imported food.

Land banking is only done because speculators expect its value to rise.

Having less onerous planning restrictions (like the rest of the world apparently) would be a game changer. If planning permission wasn't so heavily restricted (and if thats not a recipe for corruption I don't know what is) the price of building land would start falling (so Land Bankers would no longer keep it unused hoping for its price to tise) and houses would become more affordable.

Less of our money would be spent on housing benefit etc.

[Guest pelmetman]

http://www.bubbletoonz.com/uploads/toonz/000/000/005/43/blackadder-gives-jeremy-corbyn-a-maths-lesson.png

 

(lol) ..........

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2017-09-30 7:14 AM

 

Brian Kirby - 2017-09-29 7:32 PM

 

John52 - 2017-09-28 8:37 PM..........................No because the gap between building land prices and other land prices would narrow as more planning permissipn was given. Once building land prices started falling the landbankers would release their land on to the housing market because they would know the price isn't about to go up any more.

Just look at google maps satellite and see how much land could be built on - and what is a better use for it than housing the homeless? - Golf Courses *-) Wild Bird Habitat *-)

Alternatively, the land bankers would buy up the cheaper land and sit on it as they do now, since it adds to the asset value of their companies, against which they can borrow. Planning permission is only granted against proposed development. That is how the money is made. Buy up potentially developable land and then apply for permission, and then book the asset at its increased value. It might be more productive to tax planning permission, to incentivise actual building rather than land banking.

 

Uses for land? Agriculture? We already import mountains of food because we can't feed ourselves. That isn't sustainable in the longer term, and we have at times flirted with a paper thin margin of supply over demand. Divert more land from agriculture to building and roads, and we merely exacerbate the present shortage of food production, leaving ourselves even more dependent on imported food.

Land banking is only done because speculators expect its value to rise.

Having less onerous planning restrictions (like the rest of the world apparently) would be a game changer. If planning permission wasn't so heavily restricted (and if thats not a recipe for corruption I don't know what is) the price of building land would start falling (so Land Bankers would no longer keep it unused hoping for its price to tise) and houses would become more affordable.

Less of our money would be spent on housing benefit etc.

 

Or alternatively they could get on their bike and move to somewhere more affordable *-) .........

 

Couldn't be a better time either with the lowest unemployment in 45 years >:-) ........

 

 

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

John52 - 2017-09-30 7:14 AM.........................Land banking is only done because speculators expect its value to rise.

Having less onerous planning restrictions (like the rest of the world apparently) would be a game changer. If planning permission wasn't so heavily restricted (and if thats not a recipe for corruption I don't know what is) the price of building land would start falling (so Land Bankers would no longer keep it unused hoping for its price to tise) and houses would become more affordable.

Less of our money would be spent on housing benefit etc.

I think there are two points here. Planning permission is only granted in response to an application. What, IMO, is presently extremely dodgy in the present procedure is the requirement for developers to include "affordable housing" in their developments, which a) is not affordable and b) merely inflates the cost of the non-affordable housing it accompanies. The definition of affordable is nonsensical. Additionally, the developers can "offer" goodies (parish halls, road improvements etc.) as inducement to cash strapped councils to gain facilities they want at no direct cost to themselves. Thus undesirable development is permitted where the "bung" is sufficiently attractive. That is where the risk of corruption seems greatest to me, not individual corruption, but planning committees being persuaded to "sell" permission in return for the right bung to the council.

 

Second is that there is insufficient land designated for development in local plans. That can only be changed by government intervention, because the local interest is not, generally, for local development. Releasing substantial areas of land for development would bring down the price of land, but would also have a destructive impact on households that have mortgages based on present prices, who would be likely to find their lenders foreclosing on them. So, increasing the land for development is hardly a guaranteed vote winner.

[John52]

Brian Kirby - 2017-09-30 1:42 PM

I think there are two points here. Planning permission is only granted in response to an application. What, IMO, is presently extremely dodgy in the present procedure is the requirement for developers to include "affordable housing" in their developments, which a) is not affordable and b) merely inflates the cost of the non-affordable housing it accompanies. The definition of affordable is nonsensical. Additionally, the developers can "offer" goodies (parish halls, road improvements etc.) as inducement to cash strapped councils to gain facilities they want at no direct cost to themselves. Thus undesirable development is permitted where the "bung" is sufficiently attractive. That is where the risk of corruption seems greatest to me, not individual corruption, but planning committees being persuaded to "sell" permission in return for the right bung to the council.

Well of course all the bungs to get planning permission have to be paid for out of the cost of the houses - inflating prices further. But perhaps the biggest recipe for corruption is 'affordable homes' sold below market value. Who decides who gets one *-)

Brian Kirby - 2017-09-30 1:42 PM

Second is that there is insufficient land designated for development in local plans. That can only be changed by government intervention, because the local interest is not, generally, for local development. Releasing substantial areas of land for development would bring down the price of land,

Government intervention in the hosing market is the problem, not the solution. Its Government intervention that is restricting building and keping prices high to the benefit of Landlords in Government. A free market would bring prices down - like the price of consumer goods has been kept down because the British Government is not restricting their production, like it restricts house production with onerous planning constraints.

 

Brian Kirby - 2017-09-30 1:42 PM

Government but would also have a destructive impact on households that have mortgages based on present prices, who would be likely to find their lenders foreclosing on them.

Why would the lenders foreclose on them if they still have the ability to pay?

More likely they would hand their keys back to the lenders and walk away.

 

Brian Kirby - 2017-09-30 1:42 PM

So, increasing the land for development is hardly a guaranteed vote winner.

It is for those priced out of the property market. Traditionally the young who can't be bothered to vote - but they shocked everybody by voting (for Corbyn) last time - and their numbers are swelling.

The Daily Mail might have to work overtime to keep the Tories in power......

[John52]

pelmetman - 2017-09-30 8:21 AM

 

http://www.bubbletoonz.com/uploads/toonz/000/000/005/43/blackadder-gives-jeremy-corbyn-a-maths-lesson.png

 

(lol) ..........

In true Tory tradition of putting party before country, Theresa May called a snap election after saying she wouldn't because she thought it would increase her majority. But she lost her majority and gave away £2bn+ of our money in bribes to the DUP to keep her job.

I guess that wouldn't make such a good cartoon though :-S

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2017-09-30 5:11 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-09-30 8:21 AM

 

http://www.bubbletoonz.com/uploads/toonz/000/000/005/43/blackadder-gives-jeremy-corbyn-a-maths-lesson.png

 

(lol) ..........

In true Tory tradition of putting party before country, Theresa May called a snap election after saying she wouldn't because she thought it would increase her majority. But she lost her majority and gave away £2bn+ of our money in bribes to the DUP to keep her job.

I guess that wouldn't make such a good cartoon though :-S

 

And?.......You think Corbyn wont? 8-) .........

 

Ask a Jew what they think >:-) ..........

 

Your party is infested with antisemitic folk *-) .......I don't have a religious gene in my body, but I do have a massive anti hypocrite gene >:-) ........

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2017-09-30 5:02 PM

Traditionally the young who can't be bothered to vote - but they shocked everybody by voting (for Corbyn) last time - and their numbers are swelling.

The Daily Mail might have to work overtime to keep the Tories in power......

 

So you admit Labour was saved by the young and naive *-) .........

 

Plus in hind site they were woken up by the BREXIT vote which made them panic that their gap year in Magaluf might be threatened >:-) .......

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

John52 - 2017-09-30 5:02 PM Well of course all the bungs to get planning permission have to be paid for out of the cost of the houses - inflating prices further. But perhaps the biggest recipe for corruption is 'affordable homes' sold below market value. Who decides who gets one *-)

AFAIK, only first time buyers under 40, if they can afford the mortgage, on a first come first served, basis.?

 

Government intervention in the hosing market is the problem, not the solution. Its Government intervention that is restricting building and keping prices high to the benefit of Landlords in Government. A free market would bring prices down - like the price of consumer goods has been kept down because the British Government is not restricting their production, like it restricts house production with onerous planning constraints.

It would, but at the cost of uncontrolled development, which I think merely swaps one problem for another, but doesn't really solve either. After all, it is not a failure to permit local production that has kept the cost of consumer good low, it is that they are almost exclusively imported. That just means the jobs of making them have been exported. We can't do that with land: it is finite.

 

Why would the lenders foreclose on them if they still have the ability to pay?

More likely they would hand their keys back to the lenders and walk away.

I didn't say it was logical! :-) But it is exactly what they did the last time house prices fell. Once the mortgage was higher then the reduced value of the asset that backed it, they foreclosed. Not in all cases, but in many cases. Those who did as you suggest then lost their homes, and remained liable for the balance of the mortgage. Most of the property was knocked out at auctions, at even lower prices, which were then offset against the mortgage debt, less the very high legal costs involved. Those people may still be paying off what they owe, have hopelessly prejudicial credit ratings, and little prospect of home ownership in future. There are no easy answers here. :-(

 

It is for those priced out of the property market. Traditionally the young who can't be bothered to vote - but they shocked everybody by voting (for Corbyn) last time - and their numbers are swelling.

The Daily Mail might have to work overtime to keep the Tories in power......

Yes, but I don't think anyone is going to wait until we're all dead and buried before they can get homes at a reasonable price! That wouldn't get many votes either. Personal view, but I think we're going to have to consider compulsory land purchase, and the construction of new towns.

[Guest pelmetman]

Brian Kirby - 2017-09-30 5:39 PM

 

John52 - 2017-09-30 5:02 PM Well of course all the bungs to get planning permission have to be paid for out of the cost of the houses - inflating prices further. But perhaps the biggest recipe for corruption is 'affordable homes' sold below market value. Who decides who gets one *-)

AFAIK, only first time buyers under 40, if they can afford the mortgage, on a first come first served, basis.?

 

Government intervention in the hosing market is the problem, not the solution. Its Government intervention that is restricting building and keping prices high to the benefit of Landlords in Government. A free market would bring prices down - like the price of consumer goods has been kept down because the British Government is not restricting their production, like it restricts house production with onerous planning constraints.

It would, but at the cost of uncontrolled development, which I think merely swaps one problem for another, but doesn't really solve either. After all, it is not a failure to permit local production that has kept the cost of consumer good low, it is that they are almost exclusively imported. That just means the jobs of making them have been exported. We can't do that with land: it is finite.

 

Why would the lenders foreclose on them if they still have the ability to pay?

More likely they would hand their keys back to the lenders and walk away.

I didn't say it was logical! :-) But it is exactly what they did the last time house prices fell. Once the mortgage was higher then the reduced value of the asset that backed it, they foreclosed. Not in all cases, but in many cases. Those who did as you suggest then lost their homes, and remained liable for the balance of the mortgage. Most of the property was knocked out at auctions, at even lower prices, which were then offset against the mortgage debt, less the very high legal costs involved. Those people may still be paying off what they owe, have hopelessly prejudicial credit ratings, and little prospect of home ownership in future. There are no easy answers here. :-(

 

It is for those priced out of the property market. Traditionally the young who can't be bothered to vote - but they shocked everybody by voting (for Corbyn) last time - and their numbers are swelling.

The Daily Mail might have to work overtime to keep the Tories in power......

Yes, but I don't think anyone is going to wait until we're all dead and buried before they can get homes at a reasonable price! That wouldn't get many votes either. Personal view, but I think we're going to have to consider compulsory land purchase, and the construction of new towns.

 

Ooooh how very down souf (lol) (lol) (lol) .......

 

BTW the London market is dropping like a stone......probably due to BREXIT ;-) ......and as a Cockney I'm obviously gutted >:-) .........