log in
register

Boris 2.0 Operating System

  • Creator
    Topic
  • October 24, 2022 at 12:33 pm #32307
    Hirsute

    Obviously I am a deeply embedded member of the tofu eating wokerati who reads the odd guardian article, but even so, this did make me laugh out loud.

    Users worried Boris 2.0 permanently corrupted

    ‘But there is no Safe Mode, just Lunatic Mode’

     

     

  • Creator
    Topic
Viewing 15 replies - 1 through 15 (of 89 total)
1 2 3 4 5 6
  • Author
    Replies
  • October 31, 2022 at 3:07 am #1007435
    0
    Rich_cb

    Because the very same people
    Because the very same people who would buy said bungalows are incentivised to stay put in large family homes that are no longer appropriate for their needs.

    If those large family homes were available to young families there would be less demand for larger new build homes.

    Remove the bizarre tax incentives and the housing market will behave far more rationally than it does now.

    October 30, 2022 at 10:36 pm #1007433
    0
    Dnnnnnn

    Rich_cb wrote:

    Rich_cb wrote:
    If there’s profit to be made from downsizers then appropriate housing will be built

    Why is no-one building bungalows then? I’d guess it’s because, with the limited stock of building land, there’s more profit to be made on larger homes. Indeed, the residual land value approach pretty much requires it.
    There’s also an issue that local authorities aren’t keen on low density housing – apart from worthy sustainable development concerns, it’s also politically-savvy to squeeze as many homes out of as few planning applications as possible, since every proposal seems be cause massive fuss.

    October 29, 2022 at 6:53 pm #1007431
    0
    Rich_cb

    Of there’s profit to be made
    If there’s profit to be made from downsizers then appropriate housing will be built.

    At present new homes are all family homes because most of the baby boomer generation are sitting in houses far too big for their needs so young families can’t actually buy them.

    October 29, 2022 at 5:12 pm #1007429
    0
    Dnnnnnn

    Rich_cb wrote:

    Rich_cb wrote:
    Once there was increased demand from empty nesters looking to downsize and reduce their tax bills the supply of homes suitable or this would increase accordingly.

    I doubt it while the supply of housing land is so constrained and expensive. There’s an unholy alliance of local politicians and developers to restrict building to modest numbers of 3-4 bedroom homes in suburban and rural locations (and 1-2 bed flats in inner cities). Land and housing market just isn’t like that for other goods.

    October 29, 2022 at 4:46 pm #1007427
    0
    chrisonabike

    Hmm… isn’t part of the

    Hmm… isn’t part of the issue with housing that “supply” is not instant?  Ignoring the (massive) issue of planning regulations (which for all I know will be chucked on the bonfire in the future, stranger things and all…) are there not also some constraints on exactly where people will go to get the housing they want?  (e.g. where there’s space, there may not be jobs or schools).

    It seems that currently demand handily exceeds supply so won’t those supplying houses mostly concentrate on the most profitable sector of the market?  That won’t necessarily deliver (lots of) all types of housing.  Bungalows now – I’m told there’s a premium on them but they’re (very) low-density housing so maybe not the most profitable overall?  Aside from the fact that governments looking to address issues of climate change, growing and aging populations, access to amenities and car-dependence might wish to encourage more of the medium to high density developments…

    October 29, 2022 at 4:21 pm #1007425
    0
    Rich_cb

    Simply allowing the changes
    Simply allowing the changes to be offset against the house value and then realised in change if ownership would overcome that problem.

    By allowing house to be used as protection against inheritance tax, care home fees, capital gains tax etc the government have prevented the housing market from functioning as it should. The lack of bungalows etc is a symptom of this.

    Once there was increased demand from empty nesters looking to downsize and reduce their tax bills the supply of homes suitable or this would increase accordingly.

    October 28, 2022 at 10:49 pm #1007423
    0
    Dnnnnnn

    hirsute wrote:

    hirsute wrote:
    Not sure why you edited after my reply but didn’t take account of it

    road.cc did something weird to my comment – I restored it to its original state.

    October 28, 2022 at 10:48 pm #1007421
    0
    Dnnnnnn

    Rich_cb wrote:

    Rich_cb wrote:
    A tax based on housing value would also help to rationalise the housing market making it function far more efficiently.

    That’s true, and desirable – but it’s a hard political sell to force grandma out of the family home because it has appreciated hugely in recent decades while she’s living on a modest pension. And where does she go? There’s also a lack of suitable downsizing accommodation – building small bungalows hardly ever happens nowadays.

    October 28, 2022 at 8:58 pm #1007419
    0
    Rich_cb

    There is nothing fair about
    There is nothing fair about the distribution of housing wealth in the UK.

    If there is a disparity between income and housing value then that means the housing wealth is almost certainly unearned. Taxing unearned wealth is a very fair way of funding public services.

    A tax based on housing value would also help to rationalise the housing market making it function far more efficiently.

    October 28, 2022 at 8:26 pm #1007417
    0
    Hirsute

    Not sure why you edited after
    Not sure why you edited after my reply but didn’t take account of it

    October 28, 2022 at 8:25 pm #1007415
    0
    Hirsute

    No because you are assuming a
    No because you are assuming a very direct correlation between income and asset value.
    Also the regressive element is really around a very small % of owners, so you are arguing from an outlier.

    If you want fairness, then you are looking at a local income tax.

    October 28, 2022 at 5:20 pm #1007413
    0
    chrisonabike

    Let them eat cake?  (Having

    Let them eat cake?  (Having been able to test ride the bikes to work up an appetite).

    October 28, 2022 at 4:55 pm #1007411
    0
    Rich_cb

    It equalises the income for
    It equalises the income for the council it doesn’t change the fact that in poorer areas council tax is a higher percentage of house value.

    Which is what makes council tax regressive.

    Equality would be a fixed percentage of your house value every year for everybody.

    Progressive taxation would be a higher percentage of your houses value for expensive homes.

    Either system would be fairer than the current system.

    October 28, 2022 at 4:51 pm #1007409
    0
    Hirsute

    Revenue Support Grant

    Revenue Support Grant

    This helps equalise the differences in the  asset base.

    To say that it’s down to house prices from 1992 doesn’t reflect the underlying mechanisms for setting council tax and the main income streams for a council.

    October 28, 2022 at 4:45 pm #1007407
    0
    Rich_cb

    BTL has been an obsession of
    BTL has been an obsession of the left for a long time and now that they’ve got their way and BTL has been made far less attractive a lot of renters are suffering as the rule of unintended consequences comes into play with a vengeance.

    We are certainly going to be living in interesting economic times for the next few years.

  • Author
    Replies
Viewing 15 replies - 1 through 15 (of 89 total)
1 2 3 4 5 6
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.