bye bye, Nimrud, bye bye

[Dave2002]

No, it doesn't; quite a few developers of new housing estates are ordered to include a certain proportion of "affordable housing", even though it will be purchased by its occupants; the trouble is that, if it's in an expensive and/or up and coming area, market forces work their own magic to ensure that, by the time the finished buildings come up for sale, they're no longer "affordable" to most people, so it's just a hand-waving exercise, really.

I beg to differ, though it may depend on the area, and the local authority. Many developers try to avoid having to construct "affordable" housing - and I think there are let out clauses which means that they can get away with not doing so, after they have put forward plans for other uses of the land which get turned down. In some areas there is still housing, which is in short supply, which is administered by councils and other local bodies. There can be private housing associations, but the entitlement to the housing may be regulated by a local authority body.

There are technical definitions used within councils. I think one is that the properties should have a sale value which is about 80% of the market value of other property in the same areas. In some parts of the country, particularly the south east, that still makes the "affordable" housing unaffordable for most of the people who might benefit and make a useful contribution to society from it. Others may benefit by buying it, and treating it as an appreciating asset, but not make such a useful and needed contribution to society. These include many low paid workers, such as carers, who work to support the families of the much wealthier people living around them. If things get really bad the richer people won't have anybody left to care for tham, or do other useful services for them.

The latest Con idea of allowing more right to buy properties could well set up another disaster area. On the face of it Mrs T's ideas for right to buy seemed in the short term to have have worked, both politically, and also practically. See what Alan Johnson wrote about the iberating effect of that in his book. However, since it wasn't matched by house building to or house renovation or acquisition by local authorities or housing associations, the result has been that in some areas house prices have risen dramatically, and housing for poorer people, and some key workers is almost impossible to find. The Tories seem determined to continue making the same old mistakes.

[ahinton]

I beg to differ, though it may depend on the area, and the local authority. Many developers try to avoid having to construct "affordable" housing - and I think there are let out clauses which means that they can get away with not doing so, after they have put forward plans for other uses of the land which get turned down. In some areas there is still housing, which is in short supply, which is administered by councils and other local bodies. There can be private housing associations, but the entitlement to the housing may be regulated by a local authority body.

Yes, some developers do indeed try to avoid having to build so-called "affordable" housing but my point was that there's no such thing as "affordable" housing - there's only the affordability of each homeowner at any given time and that, of course, can vary not only between different homeowners but also between the same homeowners when their personal financial circumstances change and/or interests rates fluctuate. Yes, there remain some local authority owned housing but, in the poorer areas where it's most needed, the cost of its insurance and maintenance is usally greater than in other areas and that alone is a burden for local authorities.

There are technical definitions used within councils. I think one is that the properties should have a sale value which is about 80% of the market value of other property in the same areas.

I believe that you'[re right about this in principle but that doesn't make it any the less unviable because the local authorities that seek to uphold and abide by such a definition can exert no control on those market values in the first place.

In some parts of the country, particularly the south east, that still makes the "affordable" housing unaffordable for most of the people who might benefit and make a useful contribution to society from it. Others may benefit by buying it, and treating it as an appreciating asset, but not make such a useful and needed contribution to society. These include many low paid workers, such as carers, who work to support the families of the much wealthier people living around them. If things get really bad the richer people won't have anybody left to care for tham, or do other useful services for them.

That's a very good point. I've never seen the notion of treating one's home as an investment (and thus hoping that it will indeed be an appreciating asset) as making any sense other than when owners want at some point to downsize.

The latest Con idea of allowing more right to buy properties could well set up another disaster area. On the face of it Mrs T's ideas for right to buy seemed in the short term to have have worked, both politically, and also practically. See what Alan Johnson wrote about the iberating effect of that in his book. However, since it wasn't matched by house building to or house renovation or acquisition by local authorities or housing associations, the result has been that in some areas house prices have risen dramatically, and housing for poorer people, and some key workers is almost impossible to find. The Tories seem determined to continue making the same old mistakes.

So what you're really saying is that this latest idea will set up another disaster area if, in implementing it, the lessons of the Thatcher era are wilfully ignored rather than learned, right? That said, I don't see that there is necessarily a direct connection with home ownership policy and house building and renovation policy; as I wrote above, I have no problems in principle with people owning their own homes but the proportion of the populace do so can have no impact on the need for more housing which will remain vital regardless.

[MrGongGong]

I just don't get this "non-dom" thing. For one thing, these days one can get a lot from a country without actually living in it and, of course, those who clamour for abolition of "non-dom" status do so only because they don't like the fact of people living in this country and not paying their fair share of UK taxes - a perfectly understandable attitude - so the "non-doms" will simply maintain their assets and interests in UK and live outside it so that they can escape most UK taxes simply by no longer being liable for them. In any case, anyone with homes in at least two countries that they actually live in for up to almost half a year can choose, within certain limitations, in which country they pay tax; indeed, they have to do that by law.

I think the point is (as was demonstrated on QT last week where several politicians simply couldn't understand how people would be in favour of something that didn't "save money" and was a point of principle) that it's not ethical. How much money it costs or saves isn't the point. Rich people will always try to avoid paying their share, it's one of the ways of getting and staying rich!

all a long way from the original post though

[Dave2002]

So what you're really saying is that this latest idea will set up another disaster area if, in implementing it, the lessons of the Thatcher era are ignored rather than learned, right? That said, I don't see that there is necessarily a direct connection with home ownership policy and house building and renovation policy; as I wrote above, I have no problems in principle with people owning their own homes but the proportion of the populace do so can have no impact on the need for more housing which will remain vital regardless.

That's not the only point, but certainly one of them.
The UK cannot support everyone who wants to live here, even though I once read that everyone in the world could be "fitted" on to the Isle of Wight.
The population is growing, for various reasons, and perhaps some measures need to be put in place to reduce the impact of that.

I used to think that there was more space for housing in the north, and in Scotland, and indeed there is, though in fact Scotland also has a housing shortage problem in some areas. At the very least I think that incentives should be given to try to persuade people to move to some of the emptier parts of the country, and also for some no longer needed industrial sites to be reclaimed for housing - though care does have to be taken to decontaminate such areas.

Too much of the business and government of the country is centred on the south east and London.

Also, owning a house isn't always such fun - as trying to keep them maintained can be expensive, and also time consuming. There could be a lot to be said for having commercial "estates" like some of the condominiums in California, where the properties are owned by companies who manage and run them very efficiently. In business terms that could be seen as a form of outsourcing - let others do what they're best at - their core business, and let the inhabitants get on with their lives. In the UK the move towards individual owners or families owning and managing their houses often means that they do the maintenance and management rather badly, though it keeps them occupied. Houses, whether owned or rented, should be for living in, and for making life bearable, even pleasant, for those who inhabit them.

[MrGongGong]

The UK cannot support everyone who wants to live here, even though I once read that everyone in the world could be "fitted" on to the Isle of Wight.
The population is growing, for various reasons, and perhaps some measures need to be put in place to reduce the impact of that.

There are some interesting things about this...... (but beware of bonkers nut jobs on the net, apparently there are some who say that water can remember things and some even think the world was created by a divine being )

https://overpopulationisamyth.com

Also, owning a house isn't always such fun - as trying to keep them maintained can be expensive, and also time consuming

Particularly when Jean and her "window squad" of aesthetic vigilanties are on the prowl

[ahinton]

I think the point is (as was demonstrated on QT last week where several politicians simply couldn't understand how people would be in favour of something that didn't "save money" and was a point of principle) that it's not ethical.

Some of it certainly isn't ethical. Not all of it, though. If you could afford - and wanted - to have two homes in order to spend around half of the year in one and half in the other, for whatever reason/s, do you not think that you - or someone - should determine in which of those two countries you are to be liable for taxes? I know several people (and we're not even taking "rich" people here) who have homes in both countries, some of whom elect to be taxed in France and others in UK, dependeing on which suits their circumstances best; that's not tax avoidance or tax evasion but tax planning. My point was that those who object in principle to "non-dom" status do so because it's used as a means of tax avoidance or evasion and this is, as I wrote earlier, a perfectly understandable reaction to it, but the status is predicated upon the fact of people living in UK for more than half of the year and/or having business interests in UK but being taxed elsewhere (which, as you point out, is unethical and in some cases also illegal), so the answer for most of these "non-doms" is to continue as usual in every particular other than physically being in UK for more than half the year and, if that's what happens, "non-dom" status may well sign its own death warrant without anyone else becoming a penny better off as a consequence.

How much money it costs or saves isn't the point. Rich people will always try to avoid paying their share, it's one of the ways of getting and staying rich!

True (at least of some, not all, rich people), but then how will any attempts to tweak non-dom status change that?

[MrGongGong]

that's not tax avoidance or tax evasion but tax planning.

"Tax Planning" = avoidance (which is NOT illegal)

I think its interesting the way in which the rhetoric over this has made a huge confusion between "avoidance" and "evasion".

[ahinton]

Also, owning a house isn't always such fun - as trying to keep them maintained can be expensive, and also time consuming. There could be a lot to be said for having commercial "estates" like some of the condominiums in California, where the properties are owned by companies who manage and run them very efficiently. In business terms that could be seen as a form of outsourcing - let others do what they're best at - their core business, and let the inhabitants get on with their lives. In the UK the move towards individual owners or families owning and managing their houses often means that they do the maintenance and management rather badly, though it keeps them occupied. Houses, whether owned or rented, should be for living in, and for making life bearable, even pleasant, for those who inhabit them.

That's right, but the non-fun aspect of living in them that you mention could be drastically reduced through the practical promotion of certain eco-friendly house building principles, such as building homes that require as little maintenance as possible and cost as little to run as possible; yes, that means (for the time being, at least, until it becomes the norm) greater amounts of investment per square metre of floor space in ensuring that such buildings are as airtight and well insulated as possible and run using sustainable renewable energy sources and underfloor heating where the number of moving parts and parts that wear out over time is reduced but, in the long term, it will save money as well as heartaches.

[ahinton]

"Tax Planning" = avoidance (which is NOT illegal)

I think its interesting the way in which the rhetoric over this has made a huge confusion between "avoidance" and "evasion".

Not all tax planning constitutes avoidance. Deciding in which country to be taxed, for example, does not of itself mean avoiding tax in the country of choice; it means deciding in which of the two one would be liable for less tax. Inheritance tax mitigation is widely regarded as avoidance but there's a similar distinction between mitigation and avoidance, in this instance resulting in tax still having to be paid but without it coming from what would otherwise be the taxpayer's pocket. There are many other examples.

Ethics are also a problem to evaluate where taxation is concerned. If a government decides that the basic rate of income tax be 20% and then a subsequent one (or even the same one) decides that it should be 18%, do ethical considerations really have a place in such levies and changes in levies?

Yes, the distinction between avoidance and evasion is indeed an issue but it's broadly down to whether or not the law of a particular country has been broken (i.e. evasion) and, since tax laws change all the time, what might be classified as avoidance in one fiscal year could automatically become evasion in the next, or vice versa, as a sole and direct consequence of such changes; where do the ethics figure there? In consideration of such questions it's also important to get matters into proper perspective by including government sponsored avoidance schemes such as pension tax relief, ISAs, certain NS&I products and all manner of other reliefs including even the personal income tax allowance, personal CGT allowance, small profits exception for the self-employed and the like.

Governments in most democratic countries usually seek to promote the notion that there are correct amounts of tax to pay and that taxpayers should not pay a penny more or a penny less than the amounts for which they're liable at any time; however, they don't order people's financial affairs in order that they render themselves liable for more than they might otherwise. Are they unethical in that?

[Richard Barrett]

owning a house isn't always such fun

I wouldn't know, I've never owned a house or wished to - what is this mad obsession with owning houses? (and not just houses of course) Part of it - and certainly a strong reason why Tories since Thatcher at least have put across the idea that it's so important - is that it forces you to have a stake in the whole capitalist project, so that for example it's in your interest to support continued inflation in house prices and to find reasons why it's a "good thing", whatever effects it might have in terms of promoting inequality between people and between regions etc.

[Richard Barrett]

"Tax Planning" = avoidance (which is NOT illegal)

... that is to say, not illegal according to laws made by the wealthy to safeguard and increase their wealth. In moral terms there's surely very little difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance, I mean planning.

[ahinton]

I wouldn't know, I've never owned a house or wished to - what is this mad obsession with owning houses? (and not just houses of course) Part of it - and certainly a strong reason why Tories since Thatcher at least have put across the idea that it's so important - is that it forces you to have a stake in the whole capitalist project, so that for example it's in your interest to support continued inflation in house prices and to find reasons why it's a "good thing", whatever effects it might have in terms of promoting inequality between people and between regions etc.

Whether or not you or anyone else wants to own the home in which they live at any time is a matter of personal choice, but someone has to own them, so couldn't paying rent to such owners be considered as aiding and abetting those property owners "to have a stake in the whole capitalist project" and wouldn't the prices of such homes risk rising regardless of whether they're lived in by tenants or their owners? Market forces in housing take no account of property ownership; they affect tenanted properties in the same ways as owner-occupied ones, surely?

[Dave2002]

That's right, but the non-fun aspect of living in them that you mention could be drastically reduced through the practical promotion of certain eco-friendly house building principles, such as building homes that require as little maintenance as possible and cost as little to run as possible; yes, that means (for the time being, at least, until it becomes the norm) greater amounts of investment per square metre of floor space in ensuring that such buildings are as airtight and well insulated as possible and run using sustainable renewable energy sources and underfloor heating where the number of moving parts and parts that wear out over time is reduced but, in the long term, it will save money as well as heartaches.

You try telling that to developers, and indeed governments in the UK. I believe (though I've not checked definitively) that the current government has reneged on standards for house building for particular categories - probably including "affordable" ones. I am pretty much in agreement with you, but greed, both by developers and owners, and probably local authorities and governments, has managed to side step most issues of sustainability.

Fix your house, have insulation, try to take energy saving measures, investigate and perhaps install efficient energy systems - or go on holiday 3-5 times a year taking a long haul flight to get to exotic places. What do you think rich people will generally do? OK if they're truly rich they might do both.

As for younger people (say under 40) in parts of the UK they are really struggling to find and buy any house, whether energy efficient or not, and at times one can hardly blame them for taking a break and having holidays abroad. It's a bit like why people in poor communities often gamble or buy lottery tickets. Say you pay 1 dollar a week to a lottery - with the "chance" of winning a million. Richer and more educated people would say that there's no point - and suggest saving the $1 dollar each week. Suppose our hypothetical poor person really wants a car. It would probably take at least 10,000 weeks to save up enough even to buy a second hand car ($10,000) - which is around 200 (actually 192) years. The reasoning of the poorer people is that they can get a chance to buy a car, or something else which they might enjoy, but the outlay is moderately low, but they'd never be able to get what they want by saving. Even if the figures are adjusted - suppose one can buy an old wreck for $1000, that'd still take 19 years of saving at $1 per week.

However, note that in some societies, even $1 per week might be considered profligate.

[ahinton]

... that is to say, not illegal according to laws made by the wealthy to safeguard and increase their wealth. In moral terms there's surely very little difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance, I mean planning.

If that's true (and I am minded again to take into account government sponsored tax avoidance/evasion/mitigation/planning/call-it-what-you-will instruments), then one would have to presume that most if not all taxation, tax law and taxpaying as well as tax planning must run at least some risk of moral compromise; one problem with the moral and ethical arguments is that they're often predicated upon an assumption that the governments who make and implement tax laws have gotten every aspect of its tax laws, including reliefs and exemptions, rates and the rest, correct at all times, which isn't and cannot be possible. I have even heard it alleged that all self-employed sole trading taxation is predicated on the perceived immorality of those traders to the extent that tax law enables them to some degree to "plan" their tax liabilities (and therefore they do so) more than employees can do.

Take the example of a rich person who does not need to work for a living and lives largely off drawdowns of capital; is it immoral that he/she nevertheless takes advantage of various tax allowances such as the personal income tax allowance, pension tax relief, ISAs, NS&I products and the rest and only earns enough to stay under the various tax thresholds?

[ahinton]

You try telling that to developers, and indeed governments in the UK. I believe (though I've not checked definitively) that the current government has reneged on standards for house building for particular categories - probably including "affordable" ones. I am pretty much in agreement with you, but greed, both by developers and owners, and probably local authorities and governments, has managed to side step most issues of sustainability.

I wish that you were wrong but you're right about that. Developers like to think that their developments will require maintenance; it's the people who buidl only their own homews who serve their own interests by embracing as many aspets of sustainability and renewable low energy facilities as possible. Governments don't like that because the more people who do it, the less their tax revenues from fossil fuel use and from VAT on maintenance materials as well as from income tax from the individuals who work in those and allied industries.

Fix your house, have insulation, try to take energy saving measures, investigate and perhaps install efficient energy systems - or go on holiday 3-5 times a year taking a long haul flight to get to exotic places. What do you think rich people will generally do? OK if they're truly rich they might do both.

I'm not sure that it's quite as general as that; some rich people wll take all those measures first, see their invetment back in a relatively short time (even with what's left today of feed-in tariffs, &c.) and then have even more disposable income to spend on those exotic holidays!

As for younger people (say under 40) in parts of the UK they are really struggling to find and buy any house, whether energy efficient or not, and at times one can hardly blame them for taking a break and having holidays abroad. It's a bit like why people in poor communities often gamble or buy lottery tickets. Say you pay 1 dollar a week to a lottery - with the "chance" of winning a million. Richer and more educated people would say that there's no point - and suggest saving the $1 dollar each week. Suppose our hypothetical poor person really wants a car. It would probably take at least 10,000 weeks to save up enough even to buy a second hand car ($10,000) - which is around 200 (actually 192) years. The reasoning of the poorer people is that they can get a chance to buy a car, or something else which they might enjoy, but the outlay is moderately low, but they'd never be able to get what they want by saving. Even if the figures are adjusted - suppose one can buy an old wreck for $1000, that'd still take 19 years of saving at $1 per week.

However, note that in some societies, even $1 per week might be considered profligate.

All absolutely true, not least that all suchy things are sadly relative. The greatest problem in UK (since you mention it) where housing is concerned is that its cost is impossibly disproportionte to earnings; average house price £270K, average salary £27K just won't add up, will it? By the time taxes have been taken from that £27K and what's left spent on day-to-day living, there'd be very little left to fund a mortgage or pay the rent. Even assuming an average mortgage amount to be 3 × gross salary for someone on that £27K who's also fortunate enough to have sufficient funds for a deposit, the loan amount would be £91K - i.e. just under one-third of the average house price. If 3 × gross salary figure's to be accepted as a reasonable risk for a mortgage, the average house price ought not to exceed £91K. As rents are largely determined on the basis of property values, it's a wonder that most people can afford to buy or rent their homes when their values bear no practical relationship even with their gross earnings, never mind their disposable incomes.