Well done Harriet Harman

[AndySir]

Kind of poignant that actual discussion of Thatcher-era politics has now been shoved aside for some rather divisive posturing.

[nexus]

Kind of poignant that actual discussion of Thatcher-era politics has now been shoved aside for some rather divisive posturing.

Thatcher had a very real and profound affect on many people's lives, mine included, so unsurprisingly people want to comment.

[stumuzz]

So wages went down in relation to productivity, not the other way around.

I will try to dig out where I have read this and to see were I have misinterpreted it.

Won't be 'till this evening 'thou. Stupid work.

Back in!

I got the info from Robert Peston's new book, 'how do we fix this mess'

You are quite right wage went down in relation to productivity.

His assertion is that most of the stuff we consume is now being made in China and elsewhere.
We have massively borrowed to consume these goods.
The money we borrowed was borrowed from other poorer countries who had a savings culture.

The upshot being that there was a massive amount of money sloshing around the economy.

This excess dosh pushed up the cost of housing.

[UndercoverElephant]

This excess dosh pushed up the cost of housing.

What pushed up the cost of housing was people like you, who borrowed money from the banksters in order to ride a rising housing market, and then make themselves a fortune by forcing others into a life of rent-slavery.

[nexus]

This excess dosh pushed up the cost of housing.

What pushed up the cost of housing was people like you, who borrowed money from the banksters in order to ride a rising housing market, and then make themselves a fortune by forcing others into a life of rent-slavery.

Well put UE.

[Little John]

This excess dosh pushed up the cost of housing.

What pushed up the cost of housing was people like you, who borrowed money from the banksters in order to ride a rising housing market, and then make themselves a fortune by forcing others into a life of rent-slavery.

Yes

[JavaScriptDonkey]

[
Before the post war social housebuilding program, the poor were forced to live in overcrowded squalid housing. For all of its faults in modernist design, that social housebuilding program allowed poor people to live in decent housing and no longer be at the mercy of an extortionate, ruthless landlord class.

Indeed.

In the 50s the housing was good compared to the slums of the 30s.

By the 80s though these houses could still have outside toilets, single glazing and no central heating. The cost burden on Councils for retro-fitting was looking to be massive.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

taxation on the rich (who actually pay most of the tax)

Who pays most of the tax? That's quite complicated. I deliberately wrote 'the Exchequer' rather than 'taxation' and certainly not 'income tax payers'.

So the poor pay most of the tax then?

Clearly you are deluded. Tax is taken from those that have and given to those that have not.

[Totally_Baffled]

Apologies wrong thread!!

[Little John]

[
Before the post war social housebuilding program, the poor were forced to live in overcrowded squalid housing. For all of its faults in modernist design, that social housebuilding program allowed poor people to live in decent housing and no longer be at the mercy of an extortionate, ruthless landlord class.

Indeed.

In the 50s the housing was good compared to the slums of the 30s.

By the 80s though these houses could still have outside toilets, single glazing and no central heating. The cost burden on Councils for retro-fitting was looking to be massive.

Assuming I accept (which i don't) that the cost of maintaining and "improving" the social housing stock would have proved more costly to the taxpayer than subsidising the commercial mortgages of private landlords for the last thirty years; a lack of inside toilets, single glazing and central heating would have been a small price to pay to have kept that housing stock in public ownership. As it is, the tax payer has handed over a bloody fortune to private landlords for absolutely no public gain.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

With a slightly different slant it would be easy to argue that Housing Benefit is a taxation on the rich (who actually pay most of the tax)...

You may need to fact check that JSD. Vast majority of income tax receipts tend to fall in the lower couple of brackets, simply because there are so many more people in them. There's a big drop off when you hit £50k and over £150k per annum it's barely worth counting. Was trying to find the link and failed, but I know I've posted it here before.

ETA: I see Biff beat me to it, with better research...

As we are talking about Housing Benefit I'll stick with the poor/rich divider being those which claim Housing Benefit vs those whose taxes pay for it.

That cut varies according to circumstances but it's usually sub £18k.

Perhaps our definitions of 'rich' reflects our personal circumstances.

[stumuzz]

Tax is taken from those that have and given to those that have not.

A redistribution of wealth! Don't tell Biff he prefers words like ' a policy to make payments from general taxation'

[JavaScriptDonkey]

Why would you want a gun in a city? Have the moose and bears moved into town?

Because that's where most muggings and rapes happen. Nothing to do with frightening bears and a lot to do with the weak and law abiding being able to protect themselves from the strong and lawless,

[JavaScriptDonkey]

Assuming I accept (which i don't) that the cost of maintaining and "improving" the social housing stock would have proved more costly to the taxpayer than subsidising the commercial mortgages of private landlords for the last thirty years; a lack of inside toilets, single glazing and central heating would have been a small price to pay to have kept that housing stock in public ownership. As it is, the tax payer has handed over a bloody fortune to private landlords for absolutely no public gain.

I utterly agree that if we had built more social housing we would not now be subsidising private land lords through Housing Benefit but I think that situation has developed and was never intended.

Housing Benefit was a good thing.

Allowing the baby boomer generation of private house owners to veto mass house building through local planning regulations was a bad thing.

Allowing tenants to buy their houses and escape a lifetime of rent was a good thing.

Not building replacement houses and so driving house prices and rents up was a bad thing.

[MrG]

Therefore, what should the government do? Let the poorest members of society be priced out of the market or pay the price of increased housing costs (manifested in higher rents)

Introduce a rent cap.

I'll now return to the rocket science