Cost of living crisis.

[Lionator]

2 hours ago, westernpark said:

That’s not a solution but a treatment of the symptoms of being homeless, they would still be homeless. But you’re right there needs to be more shelters built.

Homeless shelters are the same as foodbanks except they'll come out of your taxes, a well functioning society should not need to build homeless shelters. Can we not aim for higher than that?

[Jon the Hat]

4 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Homeless shelters are the same as foodbanks except they'll come out of your taxes, a well functioning society should not need to build homeless shelters. Can we not aim for higher than that?

There will always be homeless people, so you need shelters.  During Covid, councils managed to get just about everybody a bed.  Too hard in normal times though apparently.

[Lionator]

3 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

There will always be homeless people, so you need shelters.  During Covid, councils managed to get just about everybody a bed.  Too hard in normal times though apparently.

Exactly, but there should be enough existing provision. If you're thinking "damn, we need to build more homeless shelters" then I'd like to think our useless councils and government would reflect on how we got into that position in the first place.

[grobyfox1990]

Just now, Lionator said:

Exactly, but there should be enough existing provision. If you're thinking "damn, we need to build more homeless shelters" then I'd like to think our useless councils and government would reflect on how we got into that position in the first place.

Exactly, why is every public service around the world (maybe apart from Scandinavia and Singapore, other suggestions welcome) so reactive. It's a horrendous use and waste of taxpayer resource. More homeless people = lets make more homeless shelters. More sick people = lets put more money into the nhs. More potholes = lets hire more pothole repair people. So dumb, be proactive.

[westernpark]

12 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Homeless shelters are the same as foodbanks except they'll come out of your taxes, a well functioning society should not need to build homeless shelters. Can we not aim for higher than that?

Yes I was attempting to say that’s not a solution but just a treatment of symptoms. Homelessness covers people who sleep on sofas, or other temporary solutions like hostels. I completely agree with aiming higher but as below states there will always be homelessness but there aren’t currently enough temporary solutions, that can be a stepping stone towards permanent accommodation.

 

9 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

There will always be homeless people, so you need shelters.  During Covid, councils managed to get just about everybody a bed.  Too hard in normal times though apparently.

 

[Tommy G]

21 hours ago, CosbehFox said:

https://www.landlordzone.co.uk/news/87-mps-are-now-landlords-including-chancellor-reveals-campaign-group

 

87 MPs currently act as landlords, claiming income. Hunt has seven flats in Southampton. 

 

Down from 115 in 2021. 

David Lammy - doesn't fit well with his image does it. 

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Exactly, why is every public service around the world (maybe apart from Scandinavia and Singapore, other suggestions welcome) so reactive. It's a horrendous use and waste of taxpayer resource. More homeless people = lets make more homeless shelters. More sick people = lets put more money into the nhs. More potholes = lets hire more pothole repair people. So dumb, be proactive.

Right. I guess such organisations don't think long term because there's often not much point for them in doing so beyond the next election cycle. Flawed.

 

But then, so is leaving such things to the vagaries of the market too. As you say, Scandinavia where both the market and public office are a bulwark against each other seems to work.

[dsr-burnley]

27 minutes ago, Lionator said:

I don't begrudge you personally, but can you not see how the benefit that you receive from those houses puts a few others at a disadvantage? I'm trying for a house at the moment with my partner and we don't have a family member who can pass on houses or even money for a deposit. A council house waitlist is insane, so it'll probably be renting until we can save some more, except we can't save because the cost of living is so high. And it's this constant cycle of people who have assets and those who don't which perpetuates a two tier society. Again, I'm not judging you personally, it's tricky because I'd do the same in your circumstance, but it's exactly how living standards continue to decline. 

But if Sly sold his properties, voluntarily or otherwise, it wouldn't give you or anyone else any advantage.  It would mean ten more families on the council house waiting list or renting or buying a property, which would exactly match the ten new properties available for the rich to buy.  I suppose as a buyer you would get an advantage at the expense of renters who can't buy.

[Foxdiamond]

Firstly political will is needed to address the housing crisis. We need something akin to The Homes For All policy used to fix the dire state of the country at the end of WW2. If the situation was treated in the attitudes that exist today I doubt the programme of rebuilding would  have taken place. 

[grobyfox1990]

43 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Right. I guess such organisations don't think long term because there's often not much point for them in doing so beyond the next election cycle. Flawed.

 

But then, so is leaving such things to the vagaries of the market too. As you say, Scandinavia where both the market and public office are a bulwark against each other seems to work.

The private sector is defo flawed, but there are safeguards. Compensation clawbacks, elimination of pension provisions, forced periods of equity hold. For an LLP, a partner will lose their house and everything they own if there is a scandal or things go against the plan. You are tied to the fortunes of the company.

Whereas in the public sector. You get sacked with a payoff, gold plated pension and get a higher paid job privately. Cameron failed massively, took us out of the EU on a lie and it's positively impacted his career!! 

[grobyfox1990]

39 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

But if Sly sold his properties, voluntarily or otherwise, it wouldn't give you or anyone else any advantage.  It would mean ten more families on the council house waiting list or renting or buying a property, which would exactly match the ten new properties available for the rich to buy.  I suppose as a buyer you would get an advantage at the expense of renters who can't buy.

No idea who Sly is, Rocky!? But it would give this dude and others an advantage. Housing is a market, just like bonds, oil, sugar, wheat, corn you name it which price  fluctuates daily. If Rocky and all the other NIMBY moaners thought about other kids, rather than just their own kids, and sold their houses at fair value rather than market value, the ten families would buy their properties rather than go on a council house waiting list. He'd make a few quid out of it, have enough to pass onto Rocky Jr's and reduce his tax bill.

You are confusing fair value with market value.

 

[dsr-burnley]

7 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

No idea who Sly is, Rocky!? But it would give this dude and others an advantage. Housing is a market, just like bonds, oil, sugar, wheat, corn you name it which price  fluctuates daily. If Rocky and all the other NIMBY moaners thought about other kids, rather than just their own kids, and sold their houses at fair value rather than market value, the ten families would buy their properties rather than go on a council house waiting list. He'd make a few quid out of it, have enough to pass onto Rocky Jr's and reduce his tax bill.

You are confusing fair value with market value.

 

It's a common assumption that anyone could buy a house if the price dropped a bit, but it isn't true.  Some of Sly's tenants may be single parent families, or people with no savings and a poor credit record, or pensioners, for example.  They would neither have ready cash nor the ability to get a mortgage.  Or they could be people who are not able or not willing to have the responsibility of owning a house, or people who move often and don't want to be tied down.

 

Sly is a poster on this board who is joining in the chat.  Read it back, you'll see his (or her) contribution.  As for reducing his tax bill, in general, reducing income is not an efficient way of saving tax.  Would you go to your employer and tell him that if he cuts your wage by £x,000, you ill save tax?  

[grobyfox1990]

1 minute ago, dsr-burnley said:

It's a common assumption that anyone could buy a house if the price dropped a bit, but it isn't true.  Some of Sly's tenants may be single parent families, or people with no savings and a poor credit record, or pensioners, for example.  They would neither have ready cash nor the ability to get a mortgage.  Or they could be people who are not able or not willing to have the responsibility of owning a house, or people who move often and don't want to be tied down.

 

Sly is a poster on this board who is joining in the chat.  Read it back, you'll see his (or her) contribution.  As for reducing his tax bill, in general, reducing income is not an efficient way of saving tax.  Would you go to your employer and tell him that if he cuts your wage by £x,000, you ill save tax?  

Ah haha, that's why, I cannot see a lot of usernames on this site, wondered why you were talking about Rocky.

Understand you are talking about specific cases, but existentially, if you base a market on FV rather than MV, it will help most people. Yes there will always be people that it does not help or do not want to own homes, that is flawed logic which means no argument will ever be won, go with the majority.

You are talking about income tax which is not relevant here. If you own 10+ investment properties you will have them wrapped up in a structure in which case minimising CT, or even better getting a loss to carry forward, is vital.

[dsr-burnley]

18 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Ah haha, that's why, I cannot see a lot of usernames on this site, wondered why you were talking about Rocky.

Understand you are talking about specific cases, but existentially, if you base a market on FV rather than MV, it will help most people. Yes there will always be people that it does not help or do not want to own homes, that is flawed logic which means no argument will ever be won, go with the majority.

You are talking about income tax which is not relevant here. If you own 10+ investment properties you will have them wrapped up in a structure in which case minimising CT, or even better getting a loss to carry forward, is vital.

I think fair value would have to mean total government control of the property market.  The implications of that would be immense, as would the costs.  But as a voluntary scheme, it's not going to happen.

 

It doesn't matter what sort of tax we're talking about.  A profit on which tax is paid is better than a loss in all but a few highly artificial cases (eg. the footballers' film losses scheme).

[grobyfox1990]

11 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

I think fair value would have to mean total government control of the property market.  The implications of that would be immense, as would the costs.  But as a voluntary scheme, it's not going to happen.

 

It doesn't matter what sort of tax we're talking about.  A profit on which tax is paid is better than a loss in all but a few highly artificial cases (eg. the footballers' film losses scheme).

Efficient markets don’t need govt control or voluntary schemes, fama is turning in his grave!!!

You are talking about income taxes again. There are plenty of offsets which can be used to create a tax loss in a structure to carry forward 

[dsr-burnley]

15 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Efficient markets don’t need govt control or voluntary schemes, fama is turning in his grave!!!

You are talking about income taxes again. There are plenty of offsets which can be used to create a tax loss in a structure to carry forward 

An efficient market works at market value by definition.  If you are proposing to artificially lower prices, then you are taking away the pure market efficiency so you must be replacing it with something else.  How would you enforce house sales at less than market value, other than by goverment control?

 

I'm talking about all taxes.  If anyone approaches anyone, regarding income tax or corporation tax or capital gains tax or inheritance tax or value added tax or any sort of tax and proposes a scheme to reduce their taxes, they'd be all ears.  Until they found that the scheme was to take an asset worth a gazillion trading beans and selling it for half a gazillion.  It is not efficient to save taxes by selling your assets for less than they are worth.

[grobyfox1990]

1 minute ago, dsr-burnley said:

An efficient market works at market value by definition.  If you are proposing to artificially lower prices, then you are taking away the pure market efficiency so you must be replacing it with something else.  How would you enforce house sales at less than market value, other than by goverment control?

 

I'm talking about all taxes.  If anyone approaches anyone, regarding income tax or corporation tax or capital gains tax or inheritance tax or value added tax or any sort of tax and proposes a scheme to reduce their taxes, they'd be all ears.  Until they found that the scheme was to take an asset worth a gazillion trading beans and selling it for half a gazillion.  It is not efficient to save taxes by selling your assets for less than they are worth.

You have literally typed the opposite definition of efficient markets lol. With all available information assets trade at their fair value. Words like ‘enforce’ once again are contradicting what an efficient market is.

Once again, you are talking about income taxes. No one is selling anything. It’s not a ‘scheme’ to use held for trading asset writedowns in various structures to reduce your tax liability. 

[dsr-burnley]

5 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

You have literally typed the opposite definition of efficient markets lol. With all available information assets trade at their fair value. Words like ‘enforce’ once again are contradicting what an efficient market is.

Once again, you are talking about income taxes. No one is selling anything. It’s not a ‘scheme’ to use held for trading asset writedowns in various structures to reduce your tax liability. 

We're definitely at cross purposes here.  My conversation with you started in reply to your post seven above this one when you said "If ... sold their houses at fair value rather than market value" so obviously we are talking about selling things.  And you went on to say that the tenants would find the houses more affordable, that the seller would still have some money to pass on to his kids, and he would have less tax to pay - so clearly you were saying that fair value is less than market value.

 

I'll have to take your word for it about market value and fair value.  I understood that markets operate at market value by definition, because market value is defined as the value set by the market.  Any more nuances are a bit beyond my grasp of economics.

[grobyfox1990]

7 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

We're definitely at cross purposes here.  My conversation with you started in reply to your post seven above this one when you said "If ... sold their houses at fair value rather than market value" so obviously we are talking about selling things.  And you went on to say that the tenants would find the houses more affordable, that the seller would still have some money to pass on to his kids, and he would have less tax to pay - so clearly you were saying that fair value is less than market value.

 

I'll have to take your word for it about market value and fair value.  I understood that markets operate at market value by definition, because market value is defined as the value set by the market.  Any more nuances are a bit beyond my grasp of economics.

Yes haha defo crossed wires. Point 1 was if Rocky sold his investment houses at fair value it would be good for others as they would be able to buy his houses. 
Point 2 was if he held them at fair value before selling them, he’d have a load of tax advantage in the years before actually selling them. 

[dsr-burnley]

3 hours ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Yes haha defo crossed wires. Point 1 was if Rocky sold his investment houses at fair value it would be good for others as they would be able to buy his houses. 
Point 2 was if he held them at fair value before selling them, he’d have a load of tax advantage in the years before actually selling them. 

I understand.

 

Though I'm not sure about any tax advantage of valuing them at fair value before sale.  There are lots of fancy things you can do with property valuations in company accounts, for example, but they are all disregarded as far as tax rules go.

[Daggers]

[ozleicester]

Tax the corporate thieves and their scumbag management


https://fortune.com/europe/2023/12/08/greedflation-study/

[DennisNedry]

The insanity of the situation is that taxpayers are funding unaffordable private rents via housing benefit.

 

Think about it, your income tax is indirectly paying off a mortgage on somebody's portfolio while you can barely afford your own mortgage/rent.

 

[Wymsey]

Does anyone else believe that supermarkets products are generally getting smaller whilst prices are up with it?

Edited 10 December 2023 by Wymsey

[Foxdiamond]

25 minutes ago, DennisNedry said:

The insanity of the situation is that taxpayers are funding unaffordable private rents via housing benefit.

 

Think about it, your income tax is indirectly paying off a mortgage on somebody's portfolio while you can barely afford your own mortgage/rent.

 

Another reason we need more council housing for working people at proper affordable rents that would reduce housing benefit bill