First-time buyers under 40 offered 20% Discount!

[Cyclone]

We all pay tax for things we don't use I think. But council tax is specifically to provide local services, so it's quite clearly unfair to double it because a house is empty.

 

So how does net migration compare to the natural population growth? And all the other factors that are driving demand (changing household demographics for example)?

 

My point is that you have to understand what to target before stating ways of which to fix the problem.

 

---------- Post added 01-10-2014 at 07:13 ----------

 

Remember, this was a REDUCTION in demand that you were to achieve.

 

If net migration dropped to zero tomorrow, demand would NOT decrease.

 

You've conflated stopping an increase in demand with a reduction in demand, they aren't the same thing, and this is why I'm saying that stopping immigration won't do it.

[firemanbob]

We all pay tax for things we don't use I think. But council tax is specifically to provide local services, so it's quite clearly unfair to double it because a house is empty.

If tax was meant to be fair we would all pay the same, clearly an old lady living in a £500K houses uses fewer services than a family of 8 living in a £80K house yet she pays more council tax. We clearly tax people based on their wealth and if someone can afford to have an house sat empty just in case they want to use it then they can afford to pay double the normal council tax. The extra money can then be used by the council to build an house for someone to live in.

 

 

 

 

So how does net migration compare to the natural population growth? And all the other factors that are driving demand (changing household demographics for example)?

 

My point is that you have to understand what to target before stating ways of which to fix the problem.

How it compares is irrelevant, if the population is increasing then demand for everything also increases, and without immigration our population wouldn't be increasing by as much as it is, immigration is the primary caused of UK population growth.

 

 

Remember, this was a REDUCTION in demand that you were to achieve.

 

If net migration dropped to zero tomorrow, demand would NOT decrease.

 

You've conflated stopping an increase in demand with a reduction in demand, they aren't the same thing, and this is why I'm saying that stopping immigration won't do it.

 

 

Yes it would because supply is constantly increasing, and if net migration went into negative figures then demand would fall even further. Remember I didn't say we should stop people leaving, I said we should cut the number of people coming to the UK, if it was cut by half then net migration would be negative and demand would fall.

[Cyclone]

Paying "the same" would be highly unfair in my opinion.

 

IMO an income based local tax would be better than house value based tax. But these are just opinions.

 

It's not irrelevant at all, it might account for 1% of the continuing rise in demand, in which case targetting it is a waste of effort.

 

You don't really seem to understand supply and demand. An increase on the supply side, is NOT a decrease in demand in economic terms.

To reduce demand you would actually have to stop people wanting houses, not just provide them with some houses.

 

Negative net migration would indeed be reducing demand. It wouldn't be good for the country in many other ways though, so I can't support it as a good idea.

 

Ultimately, affecting the supply side of the equation is much easier than the demand side. Which is I think, the position I started from several pages ago. Demand is very difficult to affect, supply, much easier.

[firemanbob]

Paying "the same" would be highly unfair in my opinion.

A couple a post back you said it would be unfair for second home owners to pay more.

 

It's not irrelevant at all, it might account for 1% of the continuing rise in demand, in which case targetting it is a waste of effort.

You think that net immigration of 250,000 people is likley to only accounts for 1% of the increased demand for housing?

 

You don't really seem to understand supply and demand. An increase on the supply side, is NOT a decrease in demand in economic terms.

I didn't say it was.

 

To reduce demand you would actually have to stop people wanting houses, not just provide them with some houses.

No you wouldn't, demand would stop when everyone that wants an house as got an house, that can be achieved by increasing the supply of houses or decreasing the number of people that need somewhere to live.

 

Negative net migration would indeed be reducing demand. It wouldn't be good for the country in many other ways though, so I can't support it as a good idea.

 

I didn't ask you to support it, and it wouldn't be bad for the country although it would be bad for some people in the country and good for other people.

 

 

Ultimately, affecting the supply side of the equation is much easier than the demand side. Which is I think, the position I started from several pages ago. Demand is very difficult to affect, supply, much easier.

 

Its significantly more difficult to build 100,000 houses and associated infrastructure than it is to stop 250,000 people coming to live in this country.

[Cyclone]

Different types of tax. A specific tax for services, that is currently based on house value and is paid per property owned. It's unfair to charge more for a property being empty.

Taxation in general, unfair to make it a flat rate.

 

I don't think that at all, I'm asking you to actually qualify what % it accounts for, rather than making unsupported assumptions.

 

You did say that. You keep saying that stopping demand increasing and allowing supply to continue increasing, will decrease demand. This is not true.

 

Stopping immigration does not decrease the number of people that need somewhere to live, the point I originally made.

 

It would be bad for the country, very bad.

 

Stopping 250,000 people entering the country stops demand increasing. It DOES NOT reduce demand.

Building 100,000 houses from a government perspective is easy, they simply relax planning law and give companies permission to build. No other effort required.

[firemanbob]

I don't think that at all, I'm asking you to actually qualify what % it accounts for, rather than making unsupported assumptions.

I don't need to qualify or prove it because no one other than you would think that the 250000 extra people won't be looking for somewhere to live when they get here.

 

Stopping immigration does not decrease the number of people that need somewhere to live, the point I originally made.

It cuts demand for new housing because immigrants need somewhere to live when they get here and there aren't enough houses for the people already here.

 

It would be bad for the country, very bad.

 

I disagree.

 

 

 

Stopping 250,000 people entering the country stops demand increasing. It DOES NOT reduce demand.

Its reduces the need to build new houses.

 

Building 100,000 houses from a government perspective is easy, they simply relax planning law and give companies permission to build. No other effort required.

 

 

But not as easy as saying no you can't come and live here.

[Cyclone]

I didn't say that they won't be. I want to know if it's a significant part of the demand, or just your hobby of immigrant bashing that makes you focus on it.

 

It DOESN'T cut demand. It stops demand rising. These are two different things. You don't seem to understand the distinction.

 

How can negative net migration be a good thing for this country, when the ones who are leaving happen to be the most qualified and wealthy, and when we have an age pyramid problem.

[firemanbob]

I didn't say that they won't be. I want to know if it's a significant part of the demand, or just your hobby of immigrant bashing that makes you focus on it.

Its an extra 250,000 people every year that need somewhere to live, assuming their household is of average size we will need an extra 100,000 homes, if they live 5 in an house its an extra 50,000 homes that need to be build, those figures look significant to me when compared to the number of new homes build each year, which is around 120,000 each year.

 

 

How can negative net migration be a good thing for this country, when the ones who are leaving happen to be the most qualified and wealthy, and when we have an age pyramid problem.

 

Made worse each year because of population growth, I assume you think this pyramid can increase in size indefinitely without causing significant problems for future generations.

Edited October 2, 2014 by firemanbob