The years of discontent, 2022/23

[101]

12 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Thanks for that list.

The first immediate problem would be how do you stop companies and people affected by this leaving the country.

Right now we get £x. If they leave we get £0.

I accept they are legal measures but being legal and being practical are two completely different things.

I wouldn't disagree with your points about £70k or your 44% rate. I don't think it would bring in very much but it wouldn't IMO cause a rush of people leaving to go to another country so there's some merit in it.

 

I think there are other things that can be done, working more closely across the commonwealth and crown protectorates to make a level taxation playing field. We left the EU because it was difficult to reform we are now "global Britain" so let's see us try and use our influence to our advantage.

Also stuff like the free ports just seems daft imo, if trading conditions are poor in Britain and you want to attract companies in why do it in tiny areas instead try and make things better across the UK, maybe cut PAYE tax and increase corporation tax? 

We have a relatively big market in the UK and London especially retains its draw for companies, I think we could squeeze them a bit harder before they withdraw from out markets. 

[Benjamin_Nevis]

4 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

I have to say that if I was earning anything like £80k to £100k, like some of these union leaders, I wouldn't feel comfortable at all living in a council house knowing the size of the lists in the country and the plight of those stuck on that list.

I also wouldn't be comfortable saying "Every person deserves a council house. It's the Tories fault".

It seems morality and decency is only allowed to flow in one direction.

Was this Bob Crowe? The number of folk on that income in a Council house must be absolutely miniscule tbf. Also, in terms of optics, I can just imagine the types of headlines in the media if a Union leader on £100K moved into a house commensurate with that sort of income: "UNION LEADER LIVES IN LAP OF LUXURY WHILE HIS MEMBERS ARE SKINT!!!!11". 

The social housing crisis can indeed be laid at the Tory party's door (well mostly). They brought in RTB, although Labour later showed little interest in removing it. Thankfully the Scottish Government binned it years ago. 

 

[Benjamin_Nevis]

2 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Eddie Dempsey.

Rail baron Mick Lynch defends £100,000-a-year union boss' right to live in a council flat | Daily Mail Online

I mean I know it's the Daily Mail, but what a joke of an article. For one thing I would expect he is not in receipt of help with his housing costs, so he'll be paying the full rent for that particular property. It also appears he got it when he worked in a much more lowly paid job. What happens once his stint as a Union boss is up or he ends up going back to work on the railway or his income drops for whatever reason again? Does he get his old Council flat back?

I think we can fire Andrew Bridgen's comments into the sun as well. He claims £2500 in monthly expenses to pay his rent 

[coprolite]

54 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

There's just under 20,000 people who fall into the "rich" category, all of whom are highly mobile, in a nation of 5 million.

We also only have a handful of truly big businesses up here.

If you want to call that "plenty" then fair enough. If you think they can be easily squeezed to pay for public services then you are wrong as every single political party which has found itself in power has discovered over the last 40 years.

The best statistics are made up statistics. 

The richest people whose assets could be part of the tax base will have barely any income showing in the stats. Either because they're not resident or because they get capital gains instead. 

And i wasn't only advocating taxing the richest 1% more. I was advocating taxing all unearned income and capital gains at higher rates for equality with earned income. 

Don't let your poor comprehension skills and low intelligence put you off spamming the thread though. 

[Benjamin_Nevis]

26 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Oh I'm not for one minute defending the Mail or the journalist. 

The fact remains though that he's sitting in a council house and really ought to be thinking about others on the waiting list who can't afford to go private.

As for what happens when his stint is over? That's no different from anyone else in a job like that. Even if he goes back to the railways, the point is that he'll still be earning more than priority people on the housing list and shouldn't be taking up a council house. We can agree that the Tories should have more council housing available (and we do) but the fact is that they are a scarce resource and should be treated as such.

If I understand it correctly, once you get a council house, that's you in there for life? If so, maybe that needs looked at.

Can you imagine the absolute rage that the old duffer quoted in that article would exude if Dempsey left and they housed an alcoholic off the homeless list? 

That aside, I disagree that he should give it up anyway, he obtained the flat entirely legitimately (as far as we know) and as long as he continues to meet the conditions of his tenancy and keeps paying what appears to be an already mental amount of rent, I don't think this is a problem. Where would you draw the income line as to who is or isn't entitled to council housing? 

Yeah, a Council house is effectively yours for as long as you want it. Again I don't have an issue with this. Indeed I've been a Council tenant since 2003. I would agree that it needs looked at in respect of folk who eventually underoccupy - eg there are lots of folk here in their 50s and 60s cutting about in 3 bed council houses now that their kids have grown up and left. A fair bit of that however is probably down to the lack of suitable properties for them to move into. No one in their right mind is going to voluntarily move out of what's been their home for 40 years to end up in some soul-crushing 1 bed flat with an anti-social ned arsehole next door. Sheltered Housing is a less attractive option and cost-cutting Councils got rid of Sheltered Housing wardens years ago in many areas. 

 

[parsforlife]

Staying in council houses beyond when you need them isn’t great when we have such a low supply of available housing.  However,  if councils charged in line with private rates and used that income to reinvest in more housing stock we’d be much better off as a society. Nobody forced out of their home,  but they aren’t preventing others as they are providing funding for someone else to be housed.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

2 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

Staying in council houses beyond when you need them isn’t great when we have such a low supply of available housing.  However,  if councils charged in line with private rates and used that income to reinvest in more housing stock we’d be much better off as a society. Nobody forced out of their home,  but they aren’t preventing others as they are providing funding for someone else to be housed.

Surely it would be better to compel piss-taking Private Landlords to charge more reasonable rents, no? Every town in Scotland must have a plethora of ex-council houses hoovered up by property companies who then charge double what the previous Council rent had been. That needs reigned in. 

[scottsdad]

Bit of a wild take that folk should be kicked out of council houses. Houses that these tenants have paid rent for (and unlike the private sector, that's not paying off a mortgage), have maintained and decorated, made roots in their community, might have raised a family in, have a lifetime of memories. 

But hey, your salary has hit a certain level so you're to be kicked out to go to the private rental sector whilst the council move Biffa Bacon in.

[scottsdad]

6 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

Staying in council houses beyond when you need them isn’t great when we have such a low supply of available housing.  However,  if councils charged in line with private rates and used that income to reinvest in more housing stock we’d be much better off as a society. Nobody forced out of their home,  but they aren’t preventing others as they are providing funding for someone else to be housed.

One thing council houses give is security. In the private sector most folk are vulnerable to the actions of their landlord. They could get kicked out at relatively short notice, have rents jacked up, whatever. 

The answer - as most folk think - is more council houses. 

[parsforlife]

30 minutes ago, Day of the Lords said:

Surely it would be better to compel piss-taking Private Landlords to charge more reasonable rents, no? Every town in Scotland must have a plethora of ex-council houses hoovered up by property companies who then charge double what the previous Council rent had been. That needs reigned in. 

Of course it does, but we need to up the council supply to help with that.  Right now it’s basically only those who at one point needed help and now no longer do that can choose between continuing to rent from the council or move to private renting/home ownership, it doesn’t surprise me given the gap in costs they often choose to stay(along with all the other factors mentioned above).    

[Benjamin_Nevis]

4 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

Of course it does, but we need to up the council supply to help with that.  Right now it’s basically only those who at one point needed help and now no longer do that can choose between continuing to rent from the council or move to private renting/home ownership, it doesn’t surprise me given the gap in costs they often choose to stay(along with all the other factors mentioned above).    

Pushing up Council rents to private rental levels would be a total disaster. There are a lot of council tenants in relatively low paid work don't quite meet the thresholds to get help with housing costs. Lumping them with another £150 a month in rent would be completely unsustainable. Any money the Council makes from increased rents will simply be lost on built up rent arrears, horrendous admin costs, arguments with UC - it would be a totally counterproductive shambles. 

[welshbairn]

Not sure how right to buy goes these days, but if he was a proper c**t he'd buy it at a discount and remove it permanently from social housing stocks. 

[parsforlife]

7 minutes ago, Day of the Lords said:

Pushing up Council rents to private rental levels would be a total disaster. There are a lot of council tenants in relatively low paid work don't quite meet the thresholds to get help with housing costs. Lumping them with another £150 a month in rent would be completely unsustainable. Any money the Council makes from increased rents will simply be lost on built up rent arrears, horrendous admin costs, arguments with UC - it would be a totally counterproductive shambles. 

And that’s where we have staged criteria come in, where someone who maybe is just outside the current criteria could be approved for their rent to stay at basic level.   

increased rent for those who can afford it wouldn’t be done in isolation.

Anyway,  it doesn’t solve the inherent issue of lack of supply, but may help in small ways.
 

 

 

[Benjamin_Nevis]

16 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

And that’s where we have staged criteria come in, where someone who maybe is just outside the current criteria could be approved for their rent to stay at basic level.   

increased rent for those who can afford it wouldn’t be done in isolation.

Anyway,  it doesn’t solve the inherent issue of lack of supply, but may help in small ways.

Administering that would be a total binfire. In any case Councils are absolutely skint and barely able to pay for the services they already provide,  by the time you factor in admin and staff costs for this it would be a totally pointless exercise and just make a load of folk even skinter than they already are. 

[scottsdad]

1 minute ago, Day of the Lords said:

Administering that would be a total binfire. In any case Councils are absolutely skint and barely able to pay for the services they already provide,  by the time you factor in admin and staff costs for this it would be a totally pointless exercise and just make a load of folk even skinter than they already are. 

This is true of many things suggested on these pages. 

Take tax. Why not have more tax bands for pay? Because the admin would be horrendous. Why not replace council tax with a local income tax? Same reason. 

In terms of pay rises, the tapered approach that @oaksoft suggested often does happen but for many companies it is usually just a single cut-off. Same reason - having more nuanced deals means more admin issues which are expensive but nobody wants to pay for. 

[ICTChris]

19 hours ago, DA Baracus said:

Tory found.

 

If you want to stop being poor just get some money, duh

[coprolite]

6 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

No political party has ever fathomed out how to do that effectively without creating a raft of unintended consequences but you obviously know better. I'm sure however that taxing unearned income like ISAs and pension funds won't have any negative impact on anyone.

You should phone Labour and offer them this "easy and obvious" solution. Maybe they'll hire you.

It would obviously have a negative impact on people with pension funds and ISAs. That's the point.  

It's not a fringe opinion and I don't claim it's my idea. 

The marxist lefty Tories were seriously considering harmonising the CGT rate with income taxes until very recently. I assume donor pressure kiboshed that plan. 

I don't think i said it would be easy. There's obviously a lot of vested interests, not least  because of the demographics where the generation that currently holds most of the income generating assets holds sway at the ballot box. 

"difficult" and "unachievable" are not the same thing.  

[scottsdad]

4 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

That's dock workers at Felixstowe announced strike action.

Dockers at UK’s largest container port vote to strike in August (msn.com)

I have a lot of sympathy for dock workers. 

Dealing with Greek gangsters, dead bodies in shipping containers, disputes with the local police about stained glass windows, crooked politicians taking bribes and offering dredging but not coming through... They have it very tough. 

 

[ICTChris]

Openreach engineers are striking tomorrow and Monday.

[Bonksy+HisChristianParade]

2 hours ago, scottsdad said:

This is true of many things suggested on these pages. 

Take tax. Why not have more tax bands for pay? Because the admin would be horrendous. Why not replace council tax with a local income tax? Same reason. 

In terms of pay rises, the tapered approach that @oaksoft suggested often does happen but for many companies it is usually just a single cut-off. Same reason - having more nuanced deals means more admin issues which are expensive but nobody wants to pay for. 

Scotland already has more income tax bands than England & Scots already pay more tax if they earn over ~£27k. I’m not sure adding an additional band would be particularly onerous from an admin perspective. The majority of payroll will be calculated automatically by software such as Sage, Brightpay etc.

Personally I’d change the intermediate rate. Use the English tax brackets but have an additional one around the £70k or £80k mark as suggested. I don’t know if it would bring in much additional tax, I just think it would be fairer.