MrSmith Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 It would be better if the government didn't subsidise mortgages at all. This is schizophrenic. The government wants to take money away from social housing tenants who are deemed to have too many bedrooms. But it wants to backstop private buyers using TAXPAYER money and allow those buyers to have as many extra bedrooms as they want. So, why should the taxpayer subsidise one group and not the other? Because helping first time buyers to buy newly built houses will stimulated the economy by encouraging builders to build house. Paying money in housing benefits just lines the pockets of buy to let landlords and forces prices ever higher. We shouldn't give young people money to pay rent, we should give them money to buy an house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 What the hell is 'rentierism'? It's certainly not a word, is it? Yes it is a word. ---------- Post added 04-06-2013 at 21:34 ---------- Because helping first time buyers to buy newly built houses will stimulated the economy by encouraging builders to build house. Paying money in housing benefits just lines the pockets of buy to let landlords and forces prices ever higher. We shouldn't give young people money to pay rent, we should give them money to buy an house. The taxpayer should not give anybody money to buy a house they could not otherwise afford. It is pure insanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Yes it is a word. ---------- Post added 04-06-2013 at 21:34 ---------- The taxpayer should not give anybody money to buy a house they could not otherwise afford. It is pure insanity. It’s more insane to give people money so that they can give it to a buy to let landlord in order that he can buy a house. Much cheaper and better for the economy to give the money so that the recipient can buy the house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 It’s more insane to give people money so that they can give it to a buy to let landlord in order that he can buy a house. Much cheaper and better for the economy to give the money so that the recipient can buy the house. Hold on, are you defending the policy now I agree with you comment about the insanity of subsidising landlords by the way. This new policy is equally mad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Hold on, are you defending the policy now I agree with you comment about the insanity of subsidising landlords by the way. This new policy is equally mad. No, but I would defend it if it applied to first time buyers and new build property only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 No, but I would defend it if it applied to first time buyers and new build property only. That's a nice ideal but not the reality of what is happening. If this policy drives up house prices it will drive up rents too. Higher rents and stagnating wages means a high housing benefit bill. If it drops prices then the supported buyers have instant negative equity in their homes, losses backstopped by the taxpayer I don't think there has ever been a worse policy. You've told us so often that you can't get out of debt by taking on more debt. This time the government is asking people to take on debt for houses they can't afford at full price, and committing the taxpayer to pick up the pieces when it goes wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 That's a nice ideal but not the reality of what is happening. If this policy drives up house prices it will drive up rents too. Higher rents and stagnating wages means a high housing benefit bill. If it drops prices then the supported buyers have instant negative equity in their homes, losses backstopped by the taxpayer I don't think there has ever been a worse policy. You've told us so often that you can't get out of debt by taking on more debt. This time the government is asking people to take on debt for houses they can't afford at full price, and committing the taxpayer to pick up the pieces when it goes wrong. I already agreed to that here. I agree, it is a moronic policy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 What the hell is 'rentierism'? It's certainly not a word, is it? Formal definition Hazem Beblawi suggested four characteristics that would determine whether or not a state could be identified as rentier: 1. if rent situations predominate 2. if the economy relies on a substantial external rent – and therefore does not require a strong domestic productive sector 3. if only a small proportion of the working population is actually involved in the generation of the rent 4. and, perhaps most importantly, which the state’s government is the principal recipient of the external rent. Well I'm none the wiser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Well I'm none the wiser In a UK context think of it as the concept of the use of the economic surplus that is generated by the population. That surplus can be used for a number of things - providing shared services for the public, leisure, culture etc... This is economic rent. That surplus can be used for good or it can be hijacked by a rentier class, a group that acquire land in ever increasing amounts in order to seek ever increasing amounts of rent. Eventually the rentier class are extracting so much of the surplus in the form of land rents that begins to damage the economy and society. London is a perfect example, a place where many people might spend 50% of their income on rent. It leaves little for anything else and leaves them with a lifestyle like a drone. They live to work (and rent) and when they are not working they have few options because so much of their income has been taken away in the form of rent. Once you have millions of people living like that you have effectively created a class of slaves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewBiz Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Yes it is a word. Not according to the Oxford English Dictionary it isn't, honest, I just checked because you got me wondering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.