bye bye, Nimrud, bye bye

[MrGongGong]

Well, not everyone of them surely - some do live in apartments!
.

Given your meticulous attention to detail (I was going to say almost "pedantic"? ) I was going to ask you to proof read my score for me, i'm sure you will find lots of mistakes

[ahinton]

Interestingly, given the Thatcher governments' right-to-buy ideology and Cameron's promise to continue it in the future, the proportion of owner-occupiers in the UK is now lower than it was under Thatcher, as we see from this article in the Torygraph. So that worked out pretty well did it not.

Indeed it did not - for reasons that can, I think. be deduced from Dave2002's post #121 in which he wrote that
"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" and "the Tories seem determined to continue making the same old mistakes."
There's a number of reasons why home ownership has decreased, though, including but by no means limited to the rise of higher education costs, disproportionate rises in property values, stock market woes and the banking crisis. What was so wrong about Thatcher's right to buy policy was that, like some of her others, it simply wasn't thought through; it was instead mere dogma parading as freedom of choice for all - in fact I wold almost go so far as to suggest that this carelessness of approach effectively came to stand in the way of the principles that she purported to enshrine in such policies and, ultimately, in the way of those policies themselves as well.

[ahinton]

The BBC TV News - around 3.35pm has a very good illustration of the historical data re house builds and housing needs. It seems obvious that allowing renters to buy their houses without providing any mechanism to compensate by having new homes put in place to meet need is just bonkers, but then what do I know?

Quite a lot, I humbly suggest! That, for starters!

The graphs showed that since the mid 1980s around the time when the first right to buy policies were put in place, that the drop in house building was very significant, and that builds due to housing associations have not compensated for the decrease in house builds.

Indeed; as I wrote in my previous post, this policy was never properly thought through in the first place beforebeing implemented, which is one reason why it smacked of ideology rather than practicality and, in the absence of any evidence that it's being thought through with any more care now, history will repeat itself.

[Serial_Apologist]

Are 'the poor' also stupid, can't work out that they're being exploited?

No, but they are made to feel stupid instead of realising that when it comes to meeting basic needs there really is no real choice in the matters we're discussing under the present system, unless one takes up squatting, tenting down in a field, living permanently on the streets, or becoming a "travelling person", and transcending asssociated privations and social stigmatisations, not to mention the law's not looking favourably on such ways of living in this Dane age.

[ahinton]

Cameron's promise is for electoral advantage, to encourage votes from those who will benefit. Most of the people who exercised their right to buy did benefit financially from substantial capital appreciation. Society as a whole lost out. Cameron has no interest in that. Nor did Thatcher.

Now, private landlords benefit from the housing shortage which has increased property prices and rents.

Whilst much of that is true, the only people who really benefited from exercising their right to buy were those whose propety values increased substantially and, when they came to realise their gains by selling up, they downsized, thereby pocketing the difference; not everyone who exercised that right did this, though.

[ahinton]

the right to buy , and the disastrous housing shortages at present are an excellent example of the failures ( or success depending on who you are) of rigged markets.

There is a really straightforward answer to our housing issues, ( shortage and high price) and that is to create more housing units, and to put supply back in some sort of equilibrium with demand.

Oh , and encourage businesses and enterprises out of the south east wherever it makes sense.

That's broadly true but it won't stop properties increasing in value out of proportion to people's salaries and profits; much we do indeed need vastly more housebuilding and renovation, it will all turn out to be a horrendously wasteful exercise if property affordability is not also increased - there'd be no point in hundreds of thousands of new homes that only a few people who need them can afford.

[ahinton]

I think HG means the poll tax, which makes the bedroom tax look like a runaway success story.....

Should be great for kids living in London paying £700 a month for a room out of the decidedly ordinary wages that so many of them get paid.

No, jean's right; he means the so-called bedroom tax or at least something broadly equivalent to it. The much derided poll tax replaced rates based upon the rateable values of properties and has since morphed into council tax, so all of those - rates, community charge and council tax - are quite different types of tax to the "bedroom tax".

[ahinton]

The present bedroom tax is principally a politically motivated persecution of some of the most vulnerable members of society. My proposed tax would apply to all private homeowners. In cases of financial hardship, payment could be deferred until after death, to be recovered from the estate of the homeowner. But hopefully, many people would choose not to pay the tax, in which case the housing stock would be more efficiently used, alleviating the housing shortage.

I'm confused. In your post #158 you wrote
"and encourage more efficient use of the existing housing stock by a new property tax calculated using a formula taking account of the number of household members and the number of rooms".
How would you envisage such a tax actually working? - by which I mean to ask whether you mean that you're seeking to advocate a tax on the owners of privately owned homes based upon the number of bedrooms and other living rooms being proportionate to the number of people living in it so that, like the "bedroom tax", what's deemed to be insufficient occupation would give rise to some kind of new tax? If so, I cannot imagine how that could be policed, let alone the cost of doing so if it were indeed possible! Furthermore, whereas the "bedroom tax" relates to benefits claimants as a means of trying to control what gets paid out to whim on the basis of how many rooms they rent and how many they actually need (in merely reconting which I am not expressing favour for it!), trying to introduce someting similar in respect of privately owned homes would do nothing of the kind and represent an even greater intrusion into the lives of people who are struggling to buy their homes on what they earn - and it may well fall foul of the UK Human Rights Act 1998, ECHR and other similar huiman rights legislation/declarations/covenants to which UK government is a signatory.

[ahinton]

Given your meticulous attention to detail (I was going to say almost "pedantic"? ) I was going to ask you to proof read my score for me, i'm sure you will find lots of mistakes

I wasn't actually being pedantic(!); I was trying to respond to your comment about the uses/misuses and interchangeabilities of the terms "homes" and "houses"! And when I proofread my scores, I always miss things, so maybe doing yours would be rather less successful than you appear to assume!

[Honoured Guest]

Whilst much of that is true, the only people who really benefited from exercising their right to buy were those whose propety values increased substantially and, when they came to realise their gains by selling up, they downsized, thereby pocketing the difference; not everyone who exercised that right did this, though.

Every owner either sells or dies. If the latter, their estate benefits from this increased property valuation. The point is that mot property bought under "right-to-buy" has appreciated in value, largely due to the housing shortage which was exacerbated by "right-to-buy".

[ahinton]

Every owner either sells or dies. If the latter, their estate benefits from this increased property valuation.

But you have not yet stated how you envisage the bedroom-type tax that you appear to be advocating would work or even how it might be assessed and levied!

[Honoured Guest]

But you have not yet stated how you envisage the bedroom-type tax that you appear to be advocating would work or even how it might be assessed and levied!

My first thoughts are:

The existing property register, which presently bands properties by valuation at an historic date for council tax purposes, would need to be augmented by survey.

Electoral registration would need to be made compulsory.

Then the property tax could be administered alongside council tax.

[MrGongGong]

I wasn't actually being pedantic(!); I was trying to respond to your comment about the uses/misuses and interchangeabilities of the terms "homes" and "houses"! And when I proofread my scores, I always miss things, so maybe doing yours would be rather less successful than you appear to assume!

I've been told by someone who's played yours that you are most precise

[ahinton]

My first thoughts are:

The existing property register, which presently bands properties by valuation at an historic date for council tax purposes, would need to be augmented by survey.

Electoral registration would need to be made compulsory.

Then the property tax could be administered alongside council tax.

I think that the existing arrangements are based upon 1991 figures, so it would need to be revamped at the outset, but then how frequently would it need to be done thereafter? Annually, surely? Tht would cost a small fortune in intself!

The cost of trying (and probably not succeeding) in making electoral registration compulsory would not be small.

But all you then say about this "property tax" is that it should be administered by the local authorities who administer and collect council tax! You've so far said nothing about what it is that would be taxed or how it would be assessed and collected under this property tax that you write about; all that you've done is advocated that already cash strapped local authorities be burdened with yet another laeyr of tax administration and collection and you say nothing about what should happen to any tax so collected. The most important priority right now is for you to clarify how the tax would be set up, rated, assessed, &c.

[ahinton]

I've been told by someone who's played yours that you are most precise

Well, I do try to be clear, as best I can; maybe that's why I've hardly ever felt impelled in rehearsal to say to any performer "could you do this like this?" or whatever else (which is great because (a) that means that I'm blessed indeed with fantastic performers and (b) it means that I don't need to be a perfect interfering pest and can usually sit in a corner and let the performers get on with it!)...