|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Mar 27, 2024 12:03:47 GMT
Re underlined and emboldened. But part of that cost is Labour, and Labour is subsidised by IWBs. So make it reciprocal: if they pay so low they they benefit from IWBs cap the price of what they are sellingl if they pay well enough they don't benefit from IWBs don't cap the price of what they are selling. All The Best You've missed the point. Take private landlords: Many operate on wafer thin margins as it is. If they have a BTL mortgage and the rate goes up beyond the rent cap then they will be subsidising the tenant. Not many can afford that, so they'll leave the market and there'll be a (worse) housing crisis. It's the same with utilities. "Cap the price" sounds lovely but what happens when the wholesale price of gas rises above the Cap? They'll stop providing the service. The bottom line: Long term, no business can afford to sell a product or service for less than it costs them to provide. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Mar 27, 2024 15:16:45 GMT
Re underlined and emboldened. But part of that cost is Labour, and Labour is subsidised by IWBs. So make it reciprocal: if they pay so low they they benefit from IWBs cap the price of what they are sellingl if they pay well enough they don't benefit from IWBs don't cap the price of what they are selling. All The Best You've missed the point. Take private landlords: Many operate on wafer thin margins as it is. If they have a BTL mortgage and the rate goes up beyond the rent cap then they will be subsidising the tenant. Not many can afford that, so they'll leave the market and there'll be a (worse) housing crisis. It's the same with utilities. "Cap the price" sounds lovely but what happens when the wholesale price of gas rises above the Cap? They'll stop providing the service. The bottom line: Long term, no business can afford to sell a product or service for less than it costs them to provide. Your first two paragraphs seem to be advocating more social housing rather than private landlords. I'd agree that we need both, but the current mix is not right and directly spiralling rents. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Mar 27, 2024 17:52:20 GMT
Re underlined and emboldened. But part of that cost is Labour, and Labour is subsidised by IWBs. So make it reciprocal: if they pay so low they they benefit from IWBs cap the price of what they are sellingl if they pay well enough they don't benefit from IWBs don't cap the price of what they are selling. All The Best You've missed the point. 1) Take private landlords: Many operate on wafer thin margins as it is. If they have a BTL mortgage and the rate goes up beyond the rent cap then they will be subsidising the tenant. Not many can afford that, so they'll leave the market and there'll be a (worse) housing crisis. 2) It's the same with utilities. "Cap the price" sounds lovely but what happens when the wholesale price of gas rises above the Cap? They'll stop providing the service. The bottom line: Long term, no business can afford to sell a product or service for less than it costs them to provide. 1) So they have over extended themselves financially, by not allowing for the fact that the repayments on their debts can go up? No one's fault but their own, the housing market does not need such recklessness as it creates instability and thereby increases prices. The housing crisis we have has been caused by two things: deregulation of the market allowing anyone to set themselves up as BTL landlord, and Thatcher's selling off of the Social Housing stick while ringfencing the revenue that brought in so it could not be used to build replacement Social Housing Stock. More regulation, and more Social Housing built and owned by local authorities is the ONLY thing that will bring stability to the rental housing market. 2) Centrica boss just had his annual salary more than doubled to £8million per annum; he earns as much in a day as a newly trained nurse earns in a year. I 1,000,000,000% guarantee his is NOT worth that - no one is. Pretty much all utility providers have been paying out unsustainable dividends, and over-the-odds remuneration packages, reel them back a bit and prices can go down to where people can afford them without the need for IWB. Well have a "flexible cap" that can accommodate changes in wholesale gas prices, without pandering to Shareholder and Executive excessive Greed. Bottom Line: Long term no business can survive by pissing money down the drain on unsustainable, and often unwarranted, share dividends, and over the odds executive pay deals. It curtails their ability to invest in sustainable growth. Sustainable growth in key sectors is the only way to break the capitalist cycle of "boom and bust". It is, arguably, the single biggest and most dangerous flaw of Late Stage Capitalism. The ultimate bottom line is that excessive greed is the root cause of almost all economic busts. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Mar 27, 2024 18:34:23 GMT
You've missed the point. Take private landlords: Many operate on wafer thin margins as it is. If they have a BTL mortgage and the rate goes up beyond the rent cap then they will be subsidising the tenant. Not many can afford that, so they'll leave the market and there'll be a (worse) housing crisis. It's the same with utilities. "Cap the price" sounds lovely but what happens when the wholesale price of gas rises above the Cap? They'll stop providing the service. The bottom line: Long term, no business can afford to sell a product or service for less than it costs them to provide. rather than private landlords. I'd agree that we need both, but the current mix is not right and directly spiralling rents. No. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Mar 27, 2024 18:39:51 GMT
You've missed the point. 1) Take private landlords: Many operate on wafer thin margins as it is. If they have a BTL mortgage and the rate goes up beyond the rent cap then they will be subsidising the tenant. Not many can afford that, so they'll leave the market and there'll be a (worse) housing crisis. 2) It's the same with utilities. "Cap the price" sounds lovely but what happens when the wholesale price of gas rises above the Cap? They'll stop providing the service. The bottom line: Long term, no business can afford to sell a product or service for less than it costs them to provide. 1) So they have over extended themselves financially, by not allowing for the fact that the repayments on their debts can go up? No one's fault but their own, the housing market does not need such recklessness as it creates instability and thereby increases prices. The housing crisis we have has been caused by two things: deregulation of the market allowing anyone to set themselves up as BTL landlord, and Thatcher's selling off of the Social Housing stick while ringfencing the revenue that brought in so it could not be used to build replacement Social Housing Stock. More regulation, and more Social Housing built and owned by local authorities is the ONLY thing that will bring stability to the rental housing market. 2) Centrica boss just had his annual salary more than doubled to £8million per annum; he earns as much in a day as a newly trained nurse earns in a year. I 1,000,000,000% guarantee his is NOT worth that - no one is. Pretty much all utility providers have been paying out unsustainable dividends, and over-the-odds remuneration packages, reel them back a bit and prices can go down to where people can afford them without the need for IWB. Well have a "flexible cap" that can accommodate changes in wholesale gas prices, without pandering to Shareholder and Executive excessive Greed. Bottom Line: Long term no business can survive by pissing money down the drain on unsustainable, and often unwarranted, share dividends, and over the odds executive pay deals. It curtails their ability to invest in sustainable growth. Sustainable growth in key sectors is the only way to break the capitalist cycle of "boom and bust". It is, arguably, the single biggest and most dangerous flaw of Late Stage Capitalism. The ultimate bottom line is that excessive greed is the root cause of almost all economic busts. All The Best What a typically left wing view which boils down to "Profit is bad". Well sorry old boy, but businesses exist to make money for their owners (and yes, shareholders are owners of the company) and if there isn't enough in it for them, they won't be providing their service to you.
That is, quite literally, the bottom line.
And anyone still blaming Thatcher for anything after all these years is not someone to be taken seriously.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Mar 28, 2024 1:50:57 GMT
1) So they have over extended themselves financially, by not allowing for the fact that the repayments on their debts can go up? No one's fault but their own, the housing market does not need such recklessness as it creates instability and thereby increases prices. The housing crisis we have has been caused by two things: deregulation of the market allowing anyone to set themselves up as BTL landlord, and Thatcher's selling off of the Social Housing stick while ringfencing the revenue that brought in so it could not be used to build replacement Social Housing Stock. More regulation, and more Social Housing built and owned by local authorities is the ONLY thing that will bring stability to the rental housing market. 2) Centrica boss just had his annual salary more than doubled to £8million per annum; he earns as much in a day as a newly trained nurse earns in a year. I 1,000,000,000% guarantee his is NOT worth that - no one is. Pretty much all utility providers have been paying out unsustainable dividends, and over-the-odds remuneration packages, reel them back a bit and prices can go down to where people can afford them without the need for IWB. Well have a "flexible cap" that can accommodate changes in wholesale gas prices, without pandering to Shareholder and Executive excessive Greed. Bottom Line: Long term no business can survive by pissing money down the drain on unsustainable, and often unwarranted, share dividends, and over the odds executive pay deals. It curtails their ability to invest in sustainable growth. Sustainable growth in key sectors is the only way to break the capitalist cycle of "boom and bust". It is, arguably, the single biggest and most dangerous flaw of Late Stage Capitalism. The ultimate bottom line is that excessive greed is the root cause of almost all economic busts. All The Best What a typically left wing view which boils down to "Profit is bad". Well sorry old boy, but businesses exist to make money for their owners (and yes, shareholders are owners of the company) and if there isn't enough in it for them, they won't be providing their service to you.
That is, quite literally, the bottom line.
And anyone still blaming Thatcher for anything after all these years is not someone to be taken seriously.
I never said Profit is bad, I said excessive greed is bad; two very different things. Who else do I blame for selling off the Social Housing Stock, and not permitting the Local Authorities to use the revenues to invest in building replacement Social Housing then? Was it Neil Kinnock? John Major? Tony Blair? Or was it Margaret Thatcher? I think we all know the answer. So the real question is: why do you want to deflect blame away form the responsible person? All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 28, 2024 7:35:30 GMT
Thatcher has been out of office for 34 years and dead for 11. Since then we have had 8 different PM's.
Anything that Thatcher did has had ample time to be repealed or replaced - if it has not then it would seem that there is support across the political spectrum.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Mar 28, 2024 8:21:55 GMT
Thatcher has been out of office for 34 years and dead for 11. Since then we have had 8 different PM's. Anything that Thatcher did has had ample time to be repealed or replaced - if it has not then it would seem that there is support across the political spectrum. What you choose to ignore is that she at the same time created the problem of destroying the supply of housing stock and actively prevented the use of funds raised in the sale from being used to create any replacements, Her antics combined with those of her asshole chancellor led to the doubling if house prices outside London thanks to multiple MIRAS tax relief removal for unmarried couples which then created a decade of negative equity. It is true that subsequent governments have done sod all about this because the cow ensured no one would ever have the money to, and two chancellors (Lamont and brown) have presided over stellar clusterfucks in the economy causing similar damage but you cannot sweep under the carpet the fact that before she fucked things up a young man in a job bringing in less in real terms than today's national minimum wage could look forward to actually being able to meet the cost of the rent of a roof over the head of himself and his wife of similar financial means without either receiving a single penny from the state and I know this to be the case because in 1981 and 1982 we were that couple, with the rent being paid entirely from my wife's salary as a civil service clerical ASSISTANT never mind Officer and me contributing my post-grad researcher salary such as the pittance was to the pile of bills, but we were able to pay our way. As we're the rest of the whole bloody street of factory workers, shop assistants and similar lowly paid people When I got my first job outside academia beer was 54p a pint in a Welsh pub, my salary as a developer of better ways to kill people was £8,500, Moira's now as a clerical officer was £3,600, the house we bought with a 100% low cost endowment mortgage was £24850 and the mortgage payment at 8% claimed about £80 and the endowment policy roughly tbe same. Not a month went by that we ever had more than £70 between us in the bank the day before paying day but neither did a month arrive when we had an overdraft Today a pint of beer can be had for £2.50 in Wetherspoons but the NMW is 10.42 which for a 40 hour week over 48 weeks in a year brings in £20,000 of which £8,000 is taxed at 20% and about £10,000 is NI'd at about 10% Back in 1981 about £6000 of my £8500 was taxed at 33% as was about £2000 of Moira's £3500 Each of us were slapped for about 8% NI with no lower earnings limit But I don't see any £100,000 houses round here, the cheapest are twice that. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 28, 2024 8:35:37 GMT
Any Government since 1990 could have allowed Councils to use the proceeds of Council House sales to build new social housing - their decision.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Mar 28, 2024 8:38:11 GMT
Thatcher has been out of office for 34 years and dead for 11. Since then we have had 8 different PM's. Anything that Thatcher did has had ample time to be repealed or replaced - if it has not then it would seem that there is support across the political spectrum. Well, part of the reason it hasn't been repealed is that a permanently over-heated housing market makes the wider economy look better than it actually is. Why else do you think so much taxpayer money is pissed down the drain propping the housing market up when it starts to stall? Help To Buy being a prime example. Of course most of the schemes are there to help those who already own a home: www.insidehousing.co.uk/comment/the-governments-housing-market-interventions-have-done-little-to-benefit-first-time-buyers-70437All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Mar 28, 2024 10:21:21 GMT
I never said Profit is bad, I said excessive greed is bad; two very different things... Centrica, since you used them as your example, have a current share dividend yield of 3.15%. Hardly excessive greed. Who else do I blame for selling off the Social Housing Stock, and not permitting the Local Authorities to use the revenues to invest in building replacement Social Housing then? Was it Neil Kinnock? John Major? Tony Blair? Or was it Margaret Thatcher? I think we all know the answer. So the real question is: why do you want to deflect blame away form the responsible person?... See below: Thatcher has been out of office for 34 years and dead for 11. Since then we have had 8 different PM's... And three Labour governments who complained much but did nothing. ...Anything that Thatcher did has had ample time to be repealed or replaced - if it has not then it would seem that there is support across the political spectrum. Well quite. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Mar 28, 2024 12:54:11 GMT
Any Government since 1990 could have allowed Councils to use the proceeds of Council House sales to build new social housing - their decision. Except that, as pointed out by wikipedia and explained here www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22077190‘Half the proceeds of the sales were paid to the local authorities, but the government restricted authorities' use of most of the money to reducing their debt until it was cleared rather than spending it on building more homes. The effect was to reduce the council housing stock, especially in areas where property prices were high, such as London and the south-east of England’ The BBC news article further points out that from 1990, only 25% of the money made from sales was returned to councils and wikipedia points out that the councils were forced when selling homes, which sold for as little as 30% of their market value as all rent paid was considered part of the purchase price, to offer no deposit mortgages to every buyer. To claim as you do that any council could have built new stock but chose not to is patently absurd. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 28, 2024 15:55:57 GMT
Any Government since 1990 could have allowed Councils to use the proceeds of Council House sales to build new social housing - their decision. Except that, as pointed out by wikipedia and explained here www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22077190‘Half the proceeds of the sales were paid to the local authorities, but the government restricted authorities' use of most of the money to reducing their debt until it was cleared rather than spending it on building more homes. The effect was to reduce the council housing stock, especially in areas where property prices were high, such as London and the south-east of England’ The BBC news article further points out that from 1990, only 25% of the money made from sales was returned to councils and wikipedia points out that the councils were forced when selling homes, which sold for as little as 30% of their market value as all rent paid was considered part of the purchase price, to offer no deposit mortgages to every buyer. To claim as you do that any council could have built new stock but chose not to is patently absurd. I never claimed that - I said: 'Any Government since 1990 could have allowed Councils to use the proceeds of Council House sales to build new social housing'We have had 8 different Governments since Thatcher was in power any one of whom could have changed the rules. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Mar 28, 2024 20:55:08 GMT
I never said Profit is bad, I said excessive greed is bad; two very different things... Centrica, since you used them as your example, have a current share dividend yield of 3.15%. Hardly excessive greed. Who else do I blame for selling off the Social Housing Stock, and not permitting the Local Authorities to use the revenues to invest in building replacement Social Housing then? Was it Neil Kinnock? John Major? Tony Blair? Or was it Margaret Thatcher? I think we all know the answer. So the real question is: why do you want to deflect blame away form the responsible person?... See below: Thatcher has been out of office for 34 years and dead for 11. Since then we have had 8 different PM's... And three Labour governments who complained much but did nothing. ...Anything that Thatcher did has had ample time to be repealed or replaced - if it has not then it would seem that there is support across the political spectrum. Well quite. I can blame other for NOT overturning Thatcher's actions - and I have done repeatedly on the other Forum I am on. But the ONLY person to blame for those action IN THE FIRST PLACE is Thatcher. It shouldn't be that hard to grasp... So I can only assume you are deliberately not understanding either basic English or basic cause and effect, and are doing so for Trolling purposes. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 28, 2024 22:45:22 GMT
Centrica, since you used them as your example, have a current share dividend yield of 3.15%. Hardly excessive greed. See below: And three Labour governments who complained much but did nothing. Well quite. I can blame other for NOT overturning Thatcher's actions - and I have done repeatedly on the other Forum I am on. But the ONLY person to blame for those action IN THE FIRST PLACE is Thatcher.
It shouldn't be that hard to grasp... So I can only assume you are deliberately not understanding either basic English or basic cause and effect, and are doing so for Trolling purposes. All The Best but you never actually said that - if you had said that between 1979 and 1990 Thatcher was responsible for Council House sales and that previous to 1979 and after 1990 other PM's were responsible you may have made more sense.. but such is life.. |
|
