Boris 2.0 Operating System

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

Rich_cb wrote:

Two reasons. Firstly the rates are not uniformly applied. A band D property in one area will pay a completely different rate to a band D property in another area. The effect of this is that in areas with lower house prices council tax is higher relative to house value so the 'rate' is effectively higher. Secondly, the bands don't continue increasing infinitely. There is a maximum value, above with everybody pays the same rate. If you own a £20m property you pay the same rate as a £1m property giving the very wealthiest a much lower effective 'rate'. Higher rates for the poorest, lower rates for the richest. Regressive. A tax of x% of house value per year would be fairer. If the % increased with value or x% of first £200,000, x+1% of next £200,000, then x+2% for value above that (in a similar way to stamp duty) then it would be progressive.

I'd go for that. Maybe have an increased rate for buy-to-let properties so that property hoarders are penalised for properties that they don't live in.

I saw a predicion by Lloyds the other day that property prices are likely to reduce by about 8% over the next few years, so that's going to make for interesting times when combined with rising interest rates.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/oct/27/lloyds-bank-profits-plunge-by-25-as-lender-prepares-for-bad-loans

Unfortunately, I can see it affecting the younger generation disproportionately as they're the ones struggling to save enough for a mortgage deposit and then once they've finally managed to wrangle a mortgage deal, they get hit by negative equity.

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.

hirsute wrote:

I can't believe that utter facist braverman is back at the home office.

She wanted to be granted an injunction on protestors based on what she thought they might do.

It's a proper shit-show.

I do like the idea of a Hindu taking top office on Diwali, though as that puts a nice spin on it. (Got my covid booster in a Hindu temple down the road - I do like their religious imagery though I couldn't tell you who all the gods are)

hawkinspeter wrote:

 

I do like the idea of a Hindu taking top office on Diwali, though as that puts a nice spin on it. (Got my covid booster in a Hindu temple down the road - I do like their religious imagery though I couldn't tell you who all the gods are)

https://hindupad.com/squirrels/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.hindusforhumanrights.org/en/blog/lord-r...

Well... it's complicated.  Pretty much all the equipment and infrastructure is provided by the private sector.  I believe that some of the "services" (such as keeping the lights on - or changing the bulbs) have also been contracted out.  We shouldn't forget all those publicly-owned not-for-profit pharma companies - sorry, private for-profit global concerns.  They are certainly implicated in some sharp practice e.g. they're very keen to influence doctors, boost prescription levels, bend the science etc.*

Again - even being a public service the system is extremely important in keeping people in jobs, being the biggest UK employer.  It's an order of magnitude above the next ones, the military and the DWP.  But the majority of UK employees work in the private sector.  Would all these people do as well working in the private sector?  Open question.

* This is also understandable as drug development (as opposed to merely churning out generics) is vastly expensive and also risky as an investment.  So only companies with deep pockets tend to be involved.  Partly for good reasons - with the exception of the pandemic we rightly demand involved and lengthy testing.  However it is a "good" for us all that this continues to happen as e.g. bacteria develop resistance etc. so the money needs motivating!

That's just the usual trope rolled out when any NHS reform is suggested.

Has any member of the government actually said that on record?

The problem is it's a wildly expensive thing.  Currently all taxpayers fund it.  The use of the system is unevenly distributed.  And it's not "fair" - because life - so some people will end up using huge sums of money while others will spend money and time avoiding using it.  For heavy users of the system many won't even be able to contribute because they're too old, young or plain sick to work.

Finally there's the "how do you keep it honest / efficient / on target" issue.  Do you think the power of competition could assist that in whole or part?  Or do you think that anything which generates profit for shareholders will at some point prioritise that rather than the "customers" (and / or fighting or making cartels with other companies)?

Well dont take my word for it, heres John Rentoul chief political editor at the Independents take... https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/editors-letters/boris-j...

No doubt you'll accuse him of being too right wing as he supported Blair and New Labour.

Ands thats all BS when taken in the context of a covid response that was a million miles away from "normal"

Do try harder.

what would be the point ? you arent interested in a proper debate on this, or allowing you might change your view from it, as I said at the beginning debates on subjects like this are wholly pointless

Awavey wrote:

what would be the point ? you arent interested in a proper debate on this, or allowing you might change your view from it, as I said at the beginning debates on subjects like this are wholly pointless

Just to repeat: you start by saying that such debate is pointless, but conclude by saying that Johnson was left of centre. Both of these cannot be true at the same time.

Awavey wrote:

Well dont take my word for it, heres John Rentoul chief political editor at the Independents take... https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/editors-letters/boris-j...

No doubt you'll accuse him of being too right wing as he supported Blair and New Labour.

Not at all, I just think he's wrong in his analysis. The key point is this: "if two-thirds of the British people support something, can it really be described as a hard right-wing policy?".

The answer to that is "yes". A majority view is by no means intrinsically that of the centre.

Where Rintoul is a bit better (though far too brief to be more than trivial) is that the traditional left and right doesn't really cover issues like Brexit.

But my main point to you was this: you start by saying that such debate is pointless, but conclude by saying that Johnson was left of centre. Both of these cannot be true at the same time.

If you want my view: Johnsonism is a bit closer to the One Nation Tory than most who claim that these days. No comment on his motivation for such policies. And you do have to count deporting if asylum seekers to Rwanda on the other side of the ledger.

And it is very difficult to detect a real compassion for people on the breadline. It's shameful that so many need food banks - I am embarrassed to be British. Judge a nation by how it looks after its least fortunate. So for me, he's still right of centre.

TheBillder wrote:

I would argue that a progressive government would do as much as possible to improve the lives of as many people as possible.

I am looking forward to voting for this new political party when someone starts it.

hawkinspeter wrote:

I spotted that Jacob Rees-Mogg is trying to scrap any EU legislation that protects workers: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/oct/24/post-brexit-proposals-mean-2400-laws-could-disappear-lawyers-warn

I'm surprised that no-one foresaw that as one of the outcomes of Brexit.

(A more amusing article here: https://newsthump.com/2022/10/24/i-only-came-back-from-my-holiday-to-make-jacob-rees-mogg-look-like-a-twat-insists-johnson/)

I thought he was out of government now, so we can go back to ignoring him. at least he didn't manage to push through his siggestions that we should abandon metric units and rever to imperial

wycombewheeler wrote:

I thought he was out of government now, so we can go back to ignoring him. at least he didn't manage to push through his siggestions that we should abandon metric units and rever to imperial

I suspect that JRM is just a teeny bit racist and couldn't bear working with Rishi

I suspect that it's Sunak not wanting such a continual cheerleader for Boris* around.  Or the irritation for him of being reminded "but back then you gave the nod to that" when arguing with his circle for a U-turn on policies.

* Which is odd for someone who apparently has never changed a nappy.

wycombewheeler wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

I spotted that Jacob Rees-Mogg is trying to scrap any EU legislation that protects workers: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/oct/24/post-brexit-proposals-mean-2400-laws-could-disappear-lawyers-warn

I'm surprised that no-one foresaw that as one of the outcomes of Brexit.

(A more amusing article here: https://newsthump.com/2022/10/24/i-only-came-back-from-my-holiday-to-make-jacob-rees-mogg-look-like-a-twat-insists-johnson/)

I thought he was out of government now, so we can go back to ignoring him. at least he didn't manage to push through his siggestions that we should abandon metric units and rever to imperial

Is that a typo for "revert to imperial" or a typo for the fact that Rees-Mogg "reveres imperial"?