I thought this was interesting

Profile picture for user charliehunt

Member for

7 years 1 month

Posts: 11,141

Well that's patently not true. The current system of local taxation pays for local services and is quite separate from any other taxes levied. Any system of taxing property values is inequitable simply because the owner of the property does not influence its value. In fact as properties increase in value the owners' ability to pay decreases in many cases. It is illogical, immoral and inequitable.
Profile picture for user Lincoln 7

Member for

9 years 4 months

Posts: 8,306

Russel Brand, Can't stand the man, his ego is larger than the National Debt, he is a 1st class pillock. Pensions, work until youur 70?. F'rinstance, can you imagine a 70 yrs old Copper, chasing a youth of about 18 rs of age across a field?, or pursuing a car that has been nicked, and many's the time I have had to drive at 100mph in a chase. Can any of us say that our driving will be as good at 70 as it was even at 65. No, the majority of Coppers are burned out way before then. Nurses?, many have to retire before 55 simply because they have ******** their backs in through lugging and lifting. Whoever comes up with these hairbrained schemes, needs to do the jobs themselves prior to making these stupid comments. It was on SKY T.V. only yesterday, Vicky FOWLER 24 yrs of age, an M.P. was, I believe standing as the Labour candidate for Nuneaton. 24 yrs of age FFS, she is still in nappies, and I doubt very much if she has ever had a job to get her hands dirty in the real world. Thats all, time to have Brekkie, bread and dripping again.:D Jim. Lincoln .7

Member for

13 years 1 month

Posts: 9,689

Well that's patently not true. The current system of local taxation pays for local services and is quite separate from any other taxes levied.
No, I understand the difference between local and national taxation, even though Councils are still funded from central government for some (most?) of their services, but the point I was trying to make is that government, local or national, (already) levy greater taxes against those that can afford it (or, in this case, those that have bigger houses). The argument that the government would use about the ability of those in more expensive properties to pay is: if you can't afford the tax you should downsize... ...and pay us a chunk of Stamp Duty while you're at it!
Profile picture for user charliehunt

Member for

7 years 1 month

Posts: 11,141

Oh, I am sure that you are right - the 70 year old pensioner who has lived in her two bedroom terrace which in some places could be worth £350,000 plus..... "forcing" people to sell smacks of an antiquated socialist proto-communist society. Equally immoral is the bedroom tax - iniquitous. "that can afford it (or, in this case, those that have bigger houses).", which is an entirely subjective judgement. Most people of my age need any equity they have against the day they find themselves shuffled into some dire care home and so sell up then to fund their final few years in as comfortable conditions as possible.

Member for

13 years 1 month

Posts: 9,689

I thought that the 'Bedroom Tax' only affected those claiming housing benefits?
Profile picture for user Bruce

Member for

19 years 10 months

Posts: 8,399

It affects anyone living in a council house. If you are a married couple, living in the four bed house you always had, but the kids have left home, you get seriously stung for the three bedrooms you aren't using any more. Of course, you could move to a 1 bedroom flat - except there aren't any to move to. A very poorly thought out tax indeed.
Profile picture for user charliehunt

Member for

7 years 1 month

Posts: 11,141

Precisely. In fact it should never have been conceived.
Profile picture for user Moggy C

Member for

19 years 10 months

Posts: 16,831

It was a makeshift solution to the issue of a shortage of social housing. It's quicker than building more houses, but a lot less effective. I guess if you are a young family who finds that now a suitably-sized property has become available you'll be all in favour of it. If a pensioner facing a move from somewhere you have lived for forty years your view might be different. Moggy
Profile picture for user charliehunt

Member for

7 years 1 month

Posts: 11,141

Yup - two sides to every coin.......

Member for

14 years 9 months

Posts: 585

Nope...its very very simple................ Build more social housing now ! Just consider it a form of quantitative easing.........
Profile picture for user charliehunt

Member for

7 years 1 month

Posts: 11,141

Correct me if I am wrong but has any post-war government got housing policy right - and that includes Attlee's '45 to '51?
Profile picture for user Moggy C

Member for

19 years 10 months

Posts: 16,831

Bring back pre-fabs. Moggy

Member for

13 years 1 month

Posts: 9,689

If you are a married couple, living in the four bed house you always had, but the kids have left home, you get seriously stung for the three bedrooms you aren't using any more...
To play devil's advocate: why should the state, a state that is seriously in debt, subsidise keeping such a couple in a manner to which they have become accustomed? Surely, council housing should be based on need not aspiration; if such a couple do not need four bedrooms then perhaps 'their' house would be better utilised for a family that does need it (and I am sure there are plenty of those too)?

Member for

14 years 9 months

Posts: 585

Ahhhh silly me Billions and billions to the banks and finance houses to prop up their business and improve the bottom line is ok. But not places for ordinary people to live. Have you any idea how expensive property is in the south east ? Pre fabs.....great my family lived in one for quite a time when my dad was de-mobbed from the Navy Modern style, easy to assemble, cheap to build......go for it ! I'm all in favour !

Member for

13 years 1 month

Posts: 9,689

Build more social housing now!
It certainly sounds like a simple solution doesn't it.....but I wonder why it hasn't been tried? Now, before we start claiming that a particular party hasn't done it because they are evil and like to oppress anybody who doesn't belong to the same dining-out club as they do, let's actually ask; why hasn't it been tried? It sounds so simple, it would stimulate the economy (well, construction anyway) and it would certainly win votes (and deflect an awful lot of criticism) so why hasn't it been tried? I can think of a few reasons myself; I'm not sure how relevant these would be but it can't all be 'win-win'! Cost, for one, and not just the cost of building the houses (although a recession will bring costs down) but the ongoing cost of state ownership and subsidy. Time; it isn't going to be a quick-fix. Scale; it is a big problem and to solve it, or even ease it, is going to need a big (expensive) solution.

Member for

14 years 9 months

Posts: 585

It hasn't happened because nobody has had the resolve to do it. House building is a fantastic way of social quantitative easing by way of generating considerable employment as an excellent bi-product. Mass produced, pre fabricated housing in a suitable location should be considered and actioned. The trouble being nobody wants it in my back yard. Making it, for some a vote looser ( ie we live in a nice place and we want it all for our selves and don't want anyone else to have it ). B@llocks to that....just start building and.....despite the current (and welcome) massive drop in oil prices lets start fracking as well. It has cost me just about everything to move from the north to the south east. Having done so nearly 4 years ago there is no way I could afford to buy my now.....nor anything near us. That's a dreadful thing ! How on earth are people going to live if they cannot afford anywhere to buy or rent. What kind of society does this ? Its not about party politics its about common sense !
Profile picture for user charliehunt

Member for

7 years 1 month

Posts: 11,141

CD - "To play devil's advocate: why should the state, a state that is seriously in debt, subsidise keeping such a couple in a manner to which they have become accustomed?" I think your question has already been answered. They would if there was any alternative but there isn't, hence the discussion about housing policy and availability.

Member for

13 years 1 month

Posts: 9,689

Billions and billions to the banks and finance houses to prop up their business and improve the bottom line is ok. But not places for ordinary people to live...
Yes, it is very easy to criticise governments for 'propping-up' the banks but it was certainly not to improve their 'bottom line'; it was to stop a collapse of the banking system and such a collapse would have had a far worse effect on 'ordinary people' than anything they have ever experienced, and certainly anything they have experienced since 2008! Property in the South-East may be expensive but (unless you owned your house outright) would you be happy if the value of property in the United Kingdom halved, as it did in Ireland? Would you be happy if your bank folded and you lost your savings, or your pension, or your house (if you have a mortgage the bank's creditors would own the house, not you)? Yes, it is easy to paint the banks as the 'bad guys' but ask yourself this; why has no government, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy or Cyprus, let a single bank go under? Why has the IMF, the ECB, and the governments of all these countries done so much to 'prop-up' their banking sectors?

Member for

14 years 9 months

Posts: 585

You are quite correct CD They will not build new housing because they want to keep high prices and ensure the rich stay rich living in the nice places that no one else can possibly afford...... All I'm interested in is having somewhere to live. I do not believe that housing should be the basis for the investment industry and using it for political gain. What kind of world are we living in when you want to deprive people of a roof over your head ? House's should not be the basis for manipulating a countries economy .......... they should be places for people to live ! Still its nice to know that you agreed with Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. My point is that QE need not be JUST money to the banks. There are other ways.
Profile picture for user charliehunt

Member for

7 years 1 month

Posts: 11,141

They will not build new housing because they want to keep high prices and ensure the rich stay rich living in the nice places that no one else can possibly afford...... .
Waco - I am not sure whether your tongue is in your cheek or you actually think that. The former, I hope.....:rolleyes: