[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]

Return ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 5227)
File  []
>> No. 5227 Anonymous
12th March 2021
Friday 3:19 pm
5227 Renters UBI
The way I see it eventually we probably will see something like a universal basic income but it will intersect with the time when property prices become truly unaffordable for anyone but the very wealthy. At that point you will have a system where a class of landlords are being propped up by public money and funded by the renters - who need jobs because the UBI will all go on rent because of demand. Perhaps rents will even exceed UBI in some areas.

Sure you might still be able to live in crowded or dilapidated homes but it will be an impoverished existence that will keep those working who have the limited skills not taken by automation as the landed get richer and richer.

This is something somewhat highlighted when you first saw UBI as an idea take hold around 2016, a blog from Shelter notes that it's simplicity is bloody terrible when it concerns the housing market because costs of living differ and many households - single parents or large families - would be disadvantaged. To make matters worse the solutions can prove impractical because there would always be a period of residency involved to a local rate and that will have to account for the fact that rental contract usually span a mere 6 months:

Are we fucked? Posted in /boo/ because I think this one might be true.

>I will just move somewhere else, like Ireland or Australia!

If you've spent any time on international websites you will notice that being priced out of ever owning a home is global phenomenon. There's no escape unless you can make do in a rural setting away from jobs and services.
Expand all images.
>> No. 5228 Anonymous
12th March 2021
Friday 3:43 pm
5228 spacer
Bring in a UBI and fund it with a tax on landlords.
>> No. 5229 Anonymous
12th March 2021
Friday 4:01 pm
5229 spacer

Wouldn't that just lead to a government monopoly on housing, where they pay themselves to rent to us?
>> No. 5230 Anonymous
12th March 2021
Friday 4:23 pm
5230 spacer
The problem is that landlordism is tied to the private pension system and the whole system might come crashing down if house prices even remain static. To make matters worse, many people have bought a home on the explicit assumption that they will use it to support their retirement or pass to their children creating a social brake on any reform as May learned.

That and obviously you can just the pass the cost of tax onto the renters.
>> No. 5231 Anonymous
12th March 2021
Friday 4:39 pm
5231 spacer
Ignoring the big social barriers to actually doing it, Surely in purely financial terms there's got to be a way to juggle this where you have the state buy up all the houses (which, provided they keep charging market rent, should pay for itself or be profitable.) and then get the coffin dodgers to put their money in index funds instead. (Which would presumably inflate share prices even more, but who cares at this point? You don't sleep in shareholdings.)
>> No. 5232 Anonymous
12th March 2021
Friday 5:08 pm
5232 spacer

Kill all boomers.
>> No. 5233 Anonymous
12th March 2021
Friday 10:06 pm
5233 spacer
I find the concept of UBI nice on the surface but super sinister underneath. It'll be dystopian slavery.

Suicide is the key lads.
>> No. 5234 Anonymous
13th March 2021
Saturday 12:41 am
5234 spacer
Fuck off, Big Undertaker shill.
>> No. 5235 Anonymous
13th March 2021
Saturday 9:07 am
5235 spacer
There's got to be some kind of broader shift eventually, like the transition away from feudalism into industrialised society as we know it. Ultimately things simply can't carry on the way they are or capitalism will cannibalise its own source of income and implode.

Obviously, I don't consider that an unrealistic outcome, in fact it often seems like the most probable, given how short sighted our contemporary leaders and big players seem to be.

It's always seemed weird to me that even with council housing, you still have to pay the rent. It's just the rent wastes everyone's time going from the DWP's bank account, to yours, then back into the local authority's. Why not just make it free. Seems like that'd save a lot on administrative costs at least. Why can't we just give everyone somewhere to live, apart from the fact that's commie talk.

According to my calculations if we shared up Britain equally, we could all have 3600 square metres of land each. That doesn't sound right though, please correct my maths if I did it wrong.
>> No. 5236 Anonymous
13th March 2021
Saturday 9:18 am
5236 spacer

Your maths are correct. Britain is much emptier than most people realise. If we had a population of 1.4 billion, we'd still have a lower population density than Hong Kong.
>> No. 5237 Anonymous
13th March 2021
Saturday 9:18 am
5237 spacer
Three acres and a cow m8.
>> No. 5238 Anonymous
13th March 2021
Saturday 11:15 am
5238 spacer
Well, yes, but HK only remotely works because it's small and surrounded by not-HK. Scale it up to UK size, and you'd be completely fucked.

3600sqm is an unhelpful size. Think 60mx60m It'd take all your time to grow food on it and it'd still not be enough for a family wanting anything other than bread and gruel. It's not big enough to justify much labour saving gear. You'd want to club your patch together with others - and, bang, you're back where we started.

Lending and bankruptcy under UI would need considering. With a guaranteed income, people are going to borrow against that, to get jam today. I'm sure that a new equilibrium will appear, where the poor are fucked over / farmed / drained of everything, UBI or no.
>> No. 5239 Anonymous
13th March 2021
Saturday 11:22 am
5239 spacer
>Think 60mx60m It'd take all your time to grow food on it and it'd still not be enough for a family wanting anything other than bread and gruel.
12,140.55 square metres and a cow.
>> No. 5240 Anonymous
13th March 2021
Saturday 12:48 pm
5240 spacer
>Why can't we just give everyone somewhere to live, apart from the fact that's commie talk.

You'd see the waiting list explode as anyone with sense decides they'd rather than not pay rent if they can avoid it. Plus there's probably musings about dependence and dignity in a transaction that is otherwise nonsensical.

>According to my calculations if we shared up Britain equally, we could all have 3600 square metres of land each.

Don't go giving anyone ideas now. I'm sure the lizard men would find a way to make sure they get all the bits with plumbing.
>> No. 5241 Anonymous
13th March 2021
Saturday 1:12 pm
5241 spacer

What if there was no waiting list and everyone just got a flat for nowt? It'll be either classic council estates or cyberpunk Judge Dredd megablocks, but we're heading that way either way. I'd rather it be for free than cost me 60% of my wages every month if so. We could have it so single people are entitled to either their own flat in the megablock, or they can have a nice semi-detached with a garden if they're either a family or willing to cohabit.

We could leave the idea of property ownership alone so people can buy a bigger, nicer place out in the suburbs if they want to, I'd just make it illegal to rent property out. If you have a house you're not using you'd have to sell it. I'd relax property sales laws and taxes and all that so people can trade houses as easily and quickly as you can part-ex your car. I wouldn't envision it killing the property market altogether, just suppressing it to the point houses are a commodity again, instead of a lifetime investment.

Give everyone their 3.6km, but not literally as in "this is your patch, do as you wish." Make it more like the way a shareholder has a stake in a company, only the company is the country. The dividends on the company's profits are paid back to those shareholders, thus enabling the UBI. The businessman still has the incentive to seek profit and enterprise, because collectively, the more money they make, the more money everyone makes, and the more money everyone makes, the more money they make. The incentive is to co-operate, instead of compete.

Don't go being a smart arse telling me that can't work. Money is made up anyway. All we have to do is summon the collective belief we're constantly getting richer, and it will be so. The economy is just a shared delusion.
>> No. 5242 Anonymous
13th March 2021
Saturday 1:33 pm
5242 spacer
I'm a lazy man so my suggestion would just be to change economic and social geography. Houses and spaces do exist but they're far from the centres of economic and cultural activity so we have a country of deeply divided markets (or just SE v everything else). All landlords must hang of course but I'm a moderate who doesn't want to live in a block with a million other people and the resultant tight social controls that come with living in extreme proximity. Just make it so I can buy a house up north but keep my London wage.

Not sure how I feel about the rest of your theory, if we tie UBI to a dividend concept then it will surly vary by overall revenue which seems a difficult square to circle when you need social support in bad times and want to discourage bubbles in the good. There's also drastically different costs of living over spaces and personal situations that need resolving combined with how immigration would work.
>> No. 5243 Anonymous
13th March 2021
Saturday 2:09 pm
5243 spacer

You could have something like what Norway does, where it doesn't just get spaffed to you every year depending on revenue, but goes into a big pot then you get a percentage out from there; that way there's always a fund for times of need, but the more is in the pot the more you get.

As for immigration, it'd mean that neo-liberal line about how immigrants are good for the economy was actually true, instead of a cynical lie by omission. Since all economic activity would contribute to your personal well-being, people would have no reason to view immigrants as hostile competition in the labour market, but a welcome addition to our productivity.

Sadly though, when Yorkshire gains independence and implements all of this, we won't be giving asylum seeking London scum like you a visa. Coming up here, talking wrong.
>> No. 5247 Anonymous
1st April 2021
Thursday 10:38 pm
5247 spacer
The biggest problem with the housing market regarding access is

1) Foreign investors buying property in the UK. It should be made illegal like in New Zealand. Property speculators from foreign countries buy property (especially in London), leave it empty for 10 years, sell it on then pocket the difference in profit.

2) The way house building is financed. The british government gives out loans to finance building homes, to property companies (and people) who not only afford to pay in full, or pay in installments from their own earnings, instead they use the rent the tenants pay after a house is built to pay off the loan for the construction of the house. This is called a buy-to-let mortgage and I think it's wrong and absurd. These mortages have made house prices dramatically rise way above the market value by artificially inflating prices.

Imagine if I wanted to get a car loan from Vauxhall and told Vauxhall that I'll pay the car loan not based on my ability to work a job, but instead someone else's ability to work a job and give their wages to me.
>> No. 5248 Anonymous
1st April 2021
Thursday 10:42 pm
5248 spacer
The UK used to have a rent control so the price was capped by the government. Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s ended this when she was prime minister, by abolishing the Fair Rents Act.

She also did the Right To Buy scheme so the council housing was sold off with the money raised going to central government instead of the council so the council couldn't replace the housing stock lost. The effects are still felt decades later today, as 2/3 or 66% of the council housing stock is gone, and the UK has a housing shortage and social housing shortage. 1.2 million people are on the council housing waiting list, which wouldn't be happening if those council housing still existed.
>> No. 5255 Anonymous
3rd April 2021
Saturday 4:54 pm
5255 spacer
I don't want to own a home. Seems like a real pain in the arse.
>> No. 5256 Anonymous
3rd April 2021
Saturday 5:01 pm
5256 spacer
>It should be made illegal like in New Zealand

Has it worked? From everything I've heard about New Zealand it's one of the most expensive places to buy a home. I'm also unsure if this would really stop Russian/Chinese oligarchs when there's so much money involved.
>> No. 5257 Anonymous
3rd April 2021
Saturday 9:06 pm
5257 spacer

I'd imagine the types of people we're dealing with in this country would buy a person to go along with the house to get around the rules. The London property market is so grossly distorted from outside reality that it's probably worth paying someone full time to hold the investment for you. Probably disabled people, too, so they can't try anything silly.

Hang on, this might legitimately be the way to solve homelessness.
>> No. 5258 Anonymous
3rd April 2021
Saturday 9:55 pm
5258 spacer

If we banned foreigners from buying British property, the ensuing economic crisis would dwarf what happened in 2008. Houses in Britain are an investment and tax avoidance vehicle that some people happen to live in.

We don't even know who owns it all, because most foreign-owned properties are held by opaque holding companies and investment trusts based in offshore tax havens. Switzerland won't give you a numbered account any more, but you can secretly stash away your ill-gotten gains in British bricks and mortar. Best of all, you can live here completely tax-free for a £30k/yr fee.
>> No. 5259 Anonymous
3rd April 2021
Saturday 9:57 pm
5259 spacer
Or more likely they will set up a corporation registered in one of the Crown Dependencies or BOTs. Or even just use one of those tax vehicles they already have. Then there's also dual nationality and residency shenanigans.

You only use the underclass to hold vacant industrial sites and offices, like scarecrows but for gyppos.
>> No. 5260 Anonymous
4th April 2021
Sunday 12:45 am
5260 spacer
>the ensuing economic crisis
Here's a wild and outlandish theory. It's probably not a good idea, but hopefully you will hear me out anyway. What if - and this is the important part here - we just didn't give a fuck? Criminal oligarchs losing money? Good. Daughter-kidnapping Middle Eastern autocrats losing money? Fine by me. I guess pension companies might own a few houses, and the dreaded baby-boomers might get a rough deal if their pensions vanish, but actual companies which provide jobs don't invest anything they can't afford to lose in streets of terraced council houses, and it's the cost of gambling that sometimes you get out less than you put in. They should be investing in the actual economy, creating more jobs, anyway. So fuck the lot of them.
>> No. 5261 Anonymous
4th April 2021
Sunday 1:38 am
5261 spacer
Think about it though. We send massive amounts of money to the third world to make our odds and ends or for resources, the slim amount of profit from this is accumulated into a few rich pricks hands and then ends up back on our shores. That system is fucked and we're at crisis point but you need to break that cycle at both ends which is likely impossible, especially if it's just Britain acting alone and it's not industries we really want.

It's not even necessarily rich people but foreign banks and individuals (clumping together as small Chinese buyers do). In some ways on a national level we both also need this to happen for currency reasons - Japan being the classic example where they literally lend money to western banks for nothing to avoid the Yen appreciating.

>I guess pension companies might own a few houses, and the dreaded baby-boomers might get a rough deal if their pensions vanish

Banks, insurance, people with mortgages, even people who need to borrow against it for repairs or what have you. I know that you don't care about these people but good luck getting a mortgage when the entire market collapses and good luck generating innovation from capital lending when the banks don't have any secure investments. It's a catch-22 and nobody really has a good answer beyond dispersing economic activity which is itself difficult to achieve.

To top it off, again, Auckland is still has one of the most outrageous housing markets in the world.
>> No. 5262 Anonymous
4th April 2021
Sunday 3:41 am
5262 spacer
What if we socialised mortgage lending/housing supply.

Not as in, give everyone council digs. But set up essentially a public owned building society, whose remit is giving mortgages at reasonable rates and making the priority about supply, not the whims of the market. Like old British Rail or Royal Mail, except it's a mortgage lender.

Because that's what it always comes back to ultimately. It's always "Oooh, well you could do that, but then the market you see", which we can all clearly see is the tail wagging the dog. If banks decide to start fucking people over or stop lending or whatever bollocks, people would be able to remortgage with the state lender who would provide guaranteed rates and stability. It could even be profitable and supplement tax income.

What's needed essentially is to tie the banks and what have you to a chair, and start breaking fingers until they understand, they work for us now. We can do that, if we create a viable alternative, instead of just letting them hold us by the bollocks.
>> No. 5263 Anonymous
4th April 2021
Sunday 7:29 am
5263 spacer

>What if - and this is the important part here - we just didn't give a fuck?

The 2008 financial crisis was caused by a speculative housing bubble bursting in the US. Unemployment in the UK increased by 60% within a year; median wages fell and still haven't recovered.

There is no "real economy", at least not in 21st century Britain. The whole thing is a house of cards built on corruption and deceit.





>set up essentially a public owned building society, whose remit is giving mortgages at reasonable rates


The US has had that for decades in the form of the FNMA and FHLMC. All it achieves is further inflating the housing bubble by flooding the market with cheap credit.

Mortgage rates have never been lower and could only be lower by setting negative interest rates. The problem is that we've painted ourselves into a corner by turning housing into an investment and tax avoidance vehicle. Lowering the cost of housing by increasing supply is at best zero-sum, because we'll end up on the hook for baby boomers whose retirement plans are based entirely on buy-to-let; in the worst case, we end up with massive amounts of capital flight and the economy collapses.

Britain is not a functioning global economy, it's the Cayman Islands on steroids. Our economy is wholly reliant on speculation, international tax avoidance and money laundering. Property (especially London property) is basically Bitcoin for Arab oligarchs and African dictators. If we turn housing back into something for people to live in, the whole charade collapses and takes the economy with it.
>> No. 5264 Anonymous
4th April 2021
Sunday 12:16 pm
5264 spacer

In the US, they have the FNMA, commonly known as Fannie Mae, which is pretty much what you describe. The challenge around it though, like the building societies we have, is that nearly everyone wants to make money in this market.
>> No. 5265 Anonymous
4th April 2021
Sunday 10:30 pm
5265 spacer

> That system is fucked and we're at crisis point but you need to break that cycle at both ends which is likely impossible, especially if it's just Britain acting alone and it's not industries we really want.

China won't subsidise our consumer goods forever.
>> No. 5266 Anonymous
4th April 2021
Sunday 10:39 pm
5266 spacer
To tie the banks to a chair, we would first need to wait for our own fingers to heal, and then get out of the chair ourselves. I'm not optimistic. Financial services are something like 17% of the entire economy in this country.

>Unemployment in the UK increased by 60% within a year
uwotm8? Do you mean that if it was 10%, it went up to 70%? It did not. Or do you mean that if it was 10% at first, it would have increased to 16%? That's more plausible, but it's an alarmist way to phrase it.

Of course, if our houses are so valuable to oligarchs and emirs, that still doesn't explain why nobody wants to build more.
>> No. 5267 Anonymous
5th April 2021
Monday 7:20 am
5267 spacer

You seem to have confused percentage points with percent. The rate of unemployment at the beginning of 2008 was 5% and by 2009 it was 8%. Eight is 60% bigger than five.

>Of course, if our houses are so valuable to oligarchs and emirs, that still doesn't explain why nobody wants to build more.

They can't build more, because planning rules have deliberately constrained the supply of housing in order to stop the bubble from bursting. People will pay whatever they have to pay in order to keep a roof over their head - in the jargon, "the demand for housing is inelastic". When you have inelastic demand and inadequate supply, prices inevitably keep rising. Speculators and investors don't like holding on to an asset that they think won't increase in value, so a small increase in supply would lead to a disproportionately large drop in prices. We've built our entire economy around the idea that house prices inevitably go up in the long run; doing anything meaningful to make housing more affordable would require us to completely redesign our economy, but nobody really knows what industry could replace it.
>> No. 5268 Anonymous
5th April 2021
Monday 7:54 am
5268 spacer
>because planning rules have deliberately constrained the supply of housing in order to stop the bubble from bursting.

No. The planning rules are for the most part fine, they're just used as a convenient scapegoat by builders and the government.

If planning rules were considerably relaxed it would save builders a fortune in bureaucracy and legal expenses but they wouldn't build any more houses than they are now. Instead they'd just be building even more cramped and claustrophobic housing estates with even less regard for access to amenities and no regards for drainage etc.
>> No. 5269 Anonymous
5th April 2021
Monday 7:59 am
5269 spacer

If the planning rules were fine, there wouldn't be a 20,000% premium for land with planning permission. Land banking is a symptom, not a cause.
>> No. 5270 Anonymous
5th April 2021
Monday 9:02 am
5270 spacer
And simply giving developers carte blanche to build whatever they like isn't a cure.
It'll put that 20000% premium into the developers pockets, maybe let them sell houses just a little cheaper to reflect lower costs, but it won't result in any more houses getting built, apart from a few extra estates on flood plains that are a 30 minute drive away from the nearest primary school.
>> No. 5271 Anonymous
5th April 2021
Monday 9:06 am
5271 spacer
The solution is, once again, for the government to do it instead.

You can't hammer a nail in with a dremmel.
>> No. 5272 Anonymous
5th April 2021
Monday 11:08 am
5272 spacer
It's such a self evidently good idea for a government to house its people, on at least a last resort / safety net / baseline level.
So why don't they? Manifestos always seem to have 'massive house building program' yet social housing never really seems to happen.
Is it just the invisible lobbying hand, or is the payoff too far off to be worth it in an election cycle, or ???
>> No. 5273 Anonymous
5th April 2021
Monday 12:09 pm
5273 spacer

Tories don't believe in council housing, Labour don't believe they can win if they spend a lot of money on council housing.
So massive housebuilding programs are almost always just figures they think they can get the private sector to put up, plus a tiny number of housing association properties.
Plus most families own their homes, so it would open you up to the attack line that you're going to devalue their "investment". Why take the risk, after all, how many MPs live in social housing..? Besides, here's a fabian leaflet from Lord Sir Baron Tarquinus proposing a means tested, technocratic solution to reform housing benefit that will ensure slightly fewer poor people can't not make their rent on time. It's just as good as building more houses, I promise...
>> No. 5274 Anonymous
5th April 2021
Monday 4:54 pm
5274 spacer
Homeowners are more likely to vote Conservative. Therefore, if the Conservatives built more houses, it would devalue the homes of their voters and they would lose more votes than they'd gain. If Labour built more houses, all their voters would buy them and start voting Conservative, and then Labour would be back in the wilderness. Nobody actually wants to build more houses.

Why they keep saying they will, I have no idea. I guess most people don't put this much thought into it.
>> No. 5275 Anonymous
5th April 2021
Monday 5:44 pm
5275 spacer
>nobody really knows what industry could replace it

>> No. 5276 Anonymous
5th April 2021
Monday 6:35 pm
5276 spacer

Homeowners outnumber renters. The basic flaw of our winner-takes-all democratic process is that it often looks a lot like a legitimised form of mob rule.
>> No. 5277 Anonymous
6th April 2021
Tuesday 9:13 pm
5277 spacer
Thanks, lads. That's bleak enough and credible enough that I'll stop being surprised and start being depressed.
>> No. 5278 Anonymous
8th April 2021
Thursday 12:13 am
5278 spacer

What if we tied UBI to a state sanctioned digital currency like China has? The adjustable currency expiration date seems like a useful feature for boosting consumption when the economy needs it and we could even control what people can buy or how much individual currency is worth at a given time. The total lack of privacy or need for banks seems like a vote-winner too in catching benefit cheats and druggies while the public respond well to flash sales and last minute deals.

After all, it wouldn't be real money provided for work but government-support coupons.
>> No. 5279 Anonymous
8th April 2021
Thursday 1:38 pm
5279 spacer

You're basically describing the american EBT system.

Return ]

Delete Post []