Sorry, what I meant was as I don't travel much I don't have to pay what many would say are unfair prices to use this service which I won't disagree with. If its re nationalized and taxes rise to subsidize it then I am paying extra for a service I never really use.
Rent Controls are the only thing that have made it possible for 'ordinary' people to live in New York City. It doesn't mean cutting rents, just mediation on rent rises. cheers, I'll have a look. My problem with it is, whatever the ideology,/ reasoning nationalised industries tend to be a bit shot because ultimately they are run by politicians.
Surely they do get cut a fair bit if they make Central London affordable? Maybe I'm being a bit simplistic but if you want to live in a two bed flat in Kensington you either earn the money to afford to buy one or accept that a a huge % of your wage is lost on rent every month. It's like football tickets- no longer affordable for most at the top level so you either don't go or it's a very expensive thing to do.
Certain industries are natural monopolies and should be owned by the State, it seems to me. What's the point of having our Utilities owned by foreigners who have carte blanche to rip us off? Best ask Sid I suppose.
In theory the private company (foreign or otherwise) may be more efficient and able to provide at a cost below what the State could, even if the State isn't seeking to make a profit. In theory competition in markets like utilties suggest they aren't necessarily natural monopolies and, in theory, competition should drive prices down. A lot of theory and not necessarily true in practice. I guess we should look at what the State does essentially still control- The NHS, roads, the armed forces etc. I don't think that's a great argument for more government intervention.
Yeah. The reasons may have been wrong, the execution clumsy, and the outcome a disaster but it was still the right thing to do. Hitchens wasn't right on everything though. Just very nearly everything.
I see what you're saying - I thought you were calling me a prig! Not that I'm reluctant to own up to my shortcomings. The left-wing LBC radio talk-show host James "Smartass" O'Brien made an interesting observation on Labour's problem with the English electorate. He said that Miliband's Labour was holding its hand out to victims, the poor, the oppressed, the downtrodden... but in England, a lot of the poor, oppressed and downtrodden don't see themselves like this. In their eyes, Miliband was talking about someone else not to them, because in their lives, things are about to get better... Those who have it tough say, yes, it's difficult now...but next year, I'll be a millionaire
Forget rental caps, I'd just set tax on rental income at 100% and then set mortgage rates the same as rental prices (based on preset council tax bands for example) with no deposits. Emancipate the modern serfs from the new age lords of the manor.
Me too! The idea came to me while washing up. I'm sure there's massive holes but I'll stick some more thoughts in shortly...
My thinking is that there'd be no reason to own a second home as a to let investment (basically a continuous transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich as a low risk, funded investment) so the market would be flooded as people look to sell up. That would reduce property prices to the point where house values roughly equate to rental prices in mortgage terms (bit speculative I know). People a way through their mortgages get the reward of upgrading cheaply. Those that suddenly find themselves in negative equity might need tax breaks to bring their repayments to an even level (or take it from the banks since you'd eradicate defaulting since everyone can already pay their rents so they'd benefit eventually) but they'd also have less years to repay. Run the tax breaks up to two houses (any more and they'll have been getting rents for a protracted period anyway). The rich get to keep their holiday / second homes since they're financing it themselves. Within a generation, people of retirement age would be out of their mortgages which might ease pension strain. People's investments would be more share based which would boost the economy. Aside from that, I'd suspect any losers would be no more susceptible than they would to a housing crash or the arbitrary nature of the housing market (in terms of making or missing out). Like I say it's probably flawed but it had a clear sense when it occurred to me earlier.
I imagine he would just nationalise all housing, move all those in Eaton Square to a sink estate in Peckham...
It's wrong to assume anyone renting out a second home is super rich. For many people saving up for and renting out a second home is their pension, particularly those who don't have much of a proper pension to look forward to. It's a low risk, low return investment rather than gambling on equities or anything else which is the sort of intangible asset left-wingers* seem to get riled about. *The political kind, not the Junior Hoilett kind, though I dislike both.
