http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/04/take-housing-fight-wealthy
I thought this looked like a rather radical approach, he makes some good points but I can't imagine it going over well.
8 million homes under used is a lot
So.. we're going to up people's taxes when their kids move out and they get ready to retire? Seems like bad timing.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 05, 2011, 12:01:51 AM
So.. we're going to up people's taxes when their kids move out and they get ready to retire? Seems like bad timing.
I think the point was to encourage people to rent out the rooms that previously had kids in them.
I still don't know how I feel about it, but having renters would certainly help with retirement income for empty nesters.
And really, what does it take to turn a "bedroom" into an "office"? Some highspeed internet cable and making the door lock?
I can see nothing but misery and woe resulting from such a law...
Still, they already let the government in their homes to inspect their televisions, not such a big leap now, is it? Do the kitchen, dining area, living room, do those rooms count as spare rooms? What happens if they cannot afford the taxes, yet can't find responsible tenets to dwell in the family home? Do they take in drug crazed street ruffians? The only good thing I can think about it is, it'll make the damned banks think long and hard about whether they really want to foreclose on a property.
Let them pitch tents. :lulz:
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 04, 2011, 11:11:42 PM
Quote from: Able on January 04, 2011, 11:04:27 PM
8 million homes under used is a lot
Yes, Comrade.
There are a total of 84,900 households (which may contain more than one person) that are classified as homeless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_England
Quote from: Telarus on January 05, 2011, 12:21:15 AM
And really, what does it take to turn a "bedroom" into an "office"? Some highspeed internet cable and making the door lock?
you mean loopholes allowing one+ bedroom to be converted to home offices
i can see that as well as not counting real estate companies (who own property then rent/lease),
or simply only counting it as a bedroom if it has a door
http://www.cardboardcitizens.org.uk/
:awesome:
Taxing spare bedrooms doesn't help the homeless problem in any way shape or form.
Seems like a job for... DEMOLITION! :evil: :evil: :evil:
George Monbiot is an idiot, and this is but the latest in a string of really stupid articles from him lately.
His last, for example, was stating the snow this winter was proof of climate change when, in January, he was claiming the exact opposite...with exactly the same weather conditions.
The thing is, apart from huge country estates, most of the people who are going to be "under-occupying" a place are the elderly, because their partner has died and their children have moved out. Forcing OAPs to live with strange people or taxing them even further, what could possibly go wrong with that plan?
Good things can come from this.
Unused bedrooms get taxed.
Bedrooms get converted to offices.
Offices automatically get included under this law.
Vacant Office buildings will get taxed.
All vacant offices will be converted to really really cheap bedrooms.
Everybody who wants it gets a place to live for dirt cheap and the housing market crashes again.
Terrorists can't believe what's happening and give up on trying to attack America because they will never be able to outdo the Americans.
See? this new tax helps fight terrorists!
More needling into the private lives of citizens.
Yes, this is exactly what we need more of. Pass the Victory Gin.
WTF is England's obsession with taxes?
I mean, really...You lost America partly because of taxation. You have the fucking Magna Carta because of King John who was obsessed with taxes...
I now have the theme song from Disney's Robin Hood in my head...
KNOCK IT OFF.
Quote from: Suu on January 05, 2011, 03:47:22 PM
I now have the theme song from Disney's Robin Hood in my head...
Which is actually a metaphor for state's rights. My Virginia education told me so.
Quote from: Suu on January 05, 2011, 03:47:22 PM
I now have the theme song from Disney's Robin Hood in my head...
KNOCK IT OFF.
DAMNIT SUU! STOP PUTTING THING INTO MY HEAD! :argh!:
Serial killer rapists rejoice! George Monbiot is looking out for your twisted desires! Ugh.
The lesson here, kids, is this: Even your home is not your own. You live there on sufferance, and if you aren't ready to take in a random homeless person, you will pay for it.
George Monbiot has roughly zero political power, I should point out. No-one listens to him.
Quote from: Gray Jester on January 05, 2011, 04:15:51 PM
Quote from: Suu on January 05, 2011, 03:47:22 PM
I now have the theme song from Disney's Robin Hood in my head...
Which is actually a metaphor for state's rights. My Virginia education told me so.
Dah ba dee ba dee ba doh doh is a metaphor for state rights?
Although, somewhat ironically, his suggestions along this line are almost the mirror-opposite of Tory economic reductionism which suggests that, among other things, giving incredibly minor tax breaks to married couples will prevent them from breaking up (because, you know, love is another word for "an extra £10 a week") and that punishing those on Jobseekers will encourage them to find jobs which dont actually exist.
Quote from: The Poster With No Name on January 05, 2011, 04:43:03 PM
George Monbiot has roughly zero political power, I should point out. No-one listens to him.
:sad:
Quote from: Suu on January 05, 2011, 04:44:23 PM
Quote from: Gray Jester on January 05, 2011, 04:15:51 PM
Quote from: Suu on January 05, 2011, 03:47:22 PM
I now have the theme song from Disney's Robin Hood in my head...
Which is actually a metaphor for state's rights. My Virginia education told me so.
Dah ba dee ba dee ba doh doh is a metaphor for state rights?
Yes. Yes it is.
And you put me on a goddamn youtube Disney song kick, Suu!
"Under the Sea" from the little mermaid is actually a song about people who rat on the mafia.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 05, 2011, 04:51:39 PM
Quote from: The Poster With No Name on January 05, 2011, 04:43:03 PM
George Monbiot has roughly zero political power, I should point out. No-one listens to him.
:sad:
Never fear. I am pretty sure the inspiration behind this particular is the "paternalistic libertarianism" espoused by the Dynamic Duo Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler, who do heavily influence our government's thinking. The above two examples in my previous post were dreamed up after Cameron read their book. Apparently, they had this
revolutionary idea where you could discourage certain kinds of activities, and promote others, by an arcane political method called "placing taxes" on those kinds of behaviour you wished to discourage and by "lowering taxes" on those kinds of behaviour you wish to encourage. It's all very complicated, I am assured by politicial scientists and economists, and possibly the most groundbreaking economic theorem since Adam Smith wrote
The Wealth of Nations.
Quote from: Fujikoma on January 05, 2011, 04:55:27 PM
"Under the Sea" from the little mermaid is actually a song about people who rat on the mafia.
....The fluke is the duke of
Sole soul?
"A Whole New World" is about anal sex.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 05, 2011, 05:05:59 PM
"A Whole New World" is about anal sex.
"Down Kitty...take off your clothes?"
Quote from: Suu on January 05, 2011, 05:10:30 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 05, 2011, 05:05:59 PM
"A Whole New World" is about anal sex.
"Down Kitty...take off your clothes?"
"Don't you dare close your eyes... Hold your breath it gets better..." :lulz:
Its not just letting homeless into the homes,
QuoteInstead of paying rent, lodgers – who are vetted and checked by the charity that runs the project – help elderly homeowners with shopping, cleaning, cooking, gardening or driving.
Quote from: Able on January 05, 2011, 06:05:41 PM
Its not just letting homeless into the homes,
QuoteInstead of paying rent, lodgers – who are vetted and checked by the charity that runs the project – help elderly homeowners with shopping, cleaning, cooking, gardening or driving.
Wow. I can see this going very, very wrong.
At least there is oversight, what about those who choose craigslist to fill the empty space
The rate of homelessnesss in the UK is very small in the first place. I've heard the number put between 300-500 for years, and for an island with a population of 60 million, that's pretty good going.
The problem with houses are thus:
- the government, in collusion with the financial services industry (and later, the media) sought to use houses to inflate a property bubble, sold on the ridiculous notion that house prices go up, but never go down, and that houses are always a great investment. That's why the average three bedroom semi-detatched has essentially doubled in price in 6 years. Cheap credit, government incentives for buying and a plethora of daytime TV programs about how to make it big as a property investor all feed this bubble.
- UK wages have been virtually static for the past generation, while inflation on the general cost of living has not. The Labour government offset this with a number of welfare programs which were essentially tax-payer funded tax breaks for corporations, as they allowed them to keep their wages down below inflation levels. As such, most first time buyers who are not stockbrokers have been virtually priced out of the market.
- the government created many, many (far too many) green zones where the building of houses was prohibited, and introduced a number of legal difficulties into trying to build more houses. As a consequence the population is growing faster than the houses are being built and so house prices are rising due to the age old laws of supply and demand (within an artificially constrained market).
All of these represent far greater problems than under-occupancy. But Monbiot was never really good with numbers, or economics.
"introduced a number of legal difficulties into trying to build more houses"
Vs
"only answer anyone is prepared to mention is more building: let the rich occupy as much space they wish, and solve the problem by dumping it on the environment,"
Quote from: Able on January 05, 2011, 06:05:41 PM
Its not just letting homeless into the homes,
QuoteInstead of paying rent, lodgers – who are vetted and checked by the charity that runs the project – help elderly homeowners with shopping, cleaning, cooking, gardening or driving.
Are you a Marxist?
Quote from: Able on January 06, 2011, 03:58:37 PM
"introduced a number of legal difficulties into trying to build more houses"
Vs
"only answer anyone is prepared to mention is more building: let the rich occupy as much space they wish, and solve the problem by dumping it on the environment,"
False dilemma.
QuoteInstead of paying rent, lodgers – who are vetted and checked by the charity that runs the project
CRB checks for the homeless, yeah that's gonna work like gangbusters!
Monbiot is a douche. He probably thought that the window tax was a good idea and decided to update it for the 21st century.
If I take some non rent paying random homeless person in do I lose my 25% council tax reduction? At which point i'm on the breadline, stop paying the mortgage, lose my home and...end up living in someones 'spare' bedroom :fnord:
QuoteThis appears to leave just one likely explanation: money. My guess, though I can find no research or figures either to support or disprove it, is that the richest third of the population has discovered that it can spread its wings. A report by the International Longevity Centre comes to the same conclusion: "Wealth ... is the key factor in whether or not we choose to occupy more housing space than is essential."
Monbiot shouldn't let a lack of facts get in the way of his dogma (and doesn't). Single occupant households are not always rich households. An ageing population leaves people in homes (asset rich) but often unemployed or retired (income poor).
QuoteIf you live by yourself, regardless of the size of your property, you get a 25% council tax discount. The rest of us, in other words, subsidise wealthy single people who want to keep their spare rooms empty.
Yeah, but Monbiot has no idea at all if these single occupiers are actually rich.
If he knew anything about housing (which he doesn't seem to at all) he would know that the supply of 1 bedroom accommodation is quite low. Most developments of housing or flats are 2 bedroom or more. Why? Because people want room to spare in case they have kids, or a spare room for visitors, and because building a 2 bed is more cost effective than building a 1 bed property.
QuoteAt which point i'm on the breadline, stop paying the mortgage, lose my home and...end up living in someones 'spare' bedroom
Give it another 4 years under the coalition and you'll probably be there anyway.
All good points though. I suspect Monbiot had a flash of "inspiration"/dumb when he wrote this, which would explain a lot, including the lack of more nuanced thinking on the subject. I'd like to know the excuse for the editors t-oh, of course.
Goddamnit.
Clickthrough = views per page = more advertising. It's the Melanie Phillips Gambit. Say something outrageous and stupid, get tons of links and views, point out your increased site visits for the quarter and push up online advertising costs as a consequence.
I know some UK bloggers actually refuse to link to stories they are criticizing, especially in the Mail and Express, because of this particular problem. And in many respects, the Guardian's CiF section is little better than either of those two sites.
Quote from: The Ingenuous Hidalgo on January 06, 2011, 07:53:35 PM
QuoteInstead of paying rent, lodgers – who are vetted and checked by the charity that runs the project
CRB checks for the homeless, yeah that's gonna work like gangbusters!
Monbiot is a douche. He probably thought that the window tax was a good idea and decided to update it for the 21st century.
If I take some non rent paying random homeless person in do I lose my 25% council tax reduction? At which point i'm on the breadline, stop paying the mortgage, lose my home and...end up living in someones 'spare' bedroom :fnord:
QuoteThis appears to leave just one likely explanation: money. My guess, though I can find no research or figures either to support or disprove it, is that the richest third of the population has discovered that it can spread its wings. A report by the International Longevity Centre comes to the same conclusion: "Wealth ... is the key factor in whether or not we choose to occupy more housing space than is essential."
Monbiot shouldn't let a lack of facts get in the way of his dogma (and doesn't). Single occupant households are not always rich households. An ageing population leaves people in homes (asset rich) but often unemployed or retired (income poor).
QuoteIf you live by yourself, regardless of the size of your property, you get a 25% council tax discount. The rest of us, in other words, subsidise wealthy single people who want to keep their spare rooms empty.
Yeah, but Monbiot has no idea at all if these single occupiers are actually rich.
If he knew anything about housing (which he doesn't seem to at all) he would know that the supply of 1 bedroom accommodation is quite low. Most developments of housing or flats are 2 bedroom or more. Why? Because people want room to spare in case they have kids, or a spare room for visitors, and because building a 2 bed is more cost effective than building a 1 bed property.
Who is this new guy I like him.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 06:51:44 PM
Quote from: Able on January 06, 2011, 03:58:37 PM
"introduced a number of legal difficulties into trying to build more houses"
Vs
"only answer anyone is prepared to mention is more building: let the rich occupy as much space they wish, and solve the problem by dumping it on the environment,"
False dilemma.
They say similar things, can you find the one that has bias
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 06, 2011, 06:14:46 PM
Quote from: Able on January 05, 2011, 06:05:41 PM
Its not just letting homeless into the homes,
QuoteInstead of paying rent, lodgers – who are vetted and checked by the charity that runs the project – help elderly homeowners with shopping, cleaning, cooking, gardening or driving.
Are you a Marxist?
Only on mondays (when I used to goto the meetings)
Quote from: Cain on January 07, 2011, 07:23:41 AM
QuoteAt which point i'm on the breadline, stop paying the mortgage, lose my home and...end up living in someones 'spare' bedroom
Give it another 4 years under the coalition and you'll probably be there anyway.
All good points though. I suspect Monbiot had a flash of "inspiration"/dumb when he wrote this, which would explain a lot, including the lack of more nuanced thinking on the subject. I'd like to know the excuse for the editors t-oh, of course.
Goddamnit.
Clickthrough = views per page = more advertising. It's the Melanie Phillips Gambit. Say something outrageous and stupid, get tons of links and views, point out your increased site visits for the quarter and push up online advertising costs as a consequence.
I know some UK bloggers actually refuse to link to stories they are criticizing, especially in the Mail and Express, because of this particular problem. And in many respects, the Guardian's CiF section is little better than either of those two sites.
So if i post something I vehemently disagree with I should quote extensively and not link?
Depending on where you post it. The people I am talking about are major bloggers, within the top 100 in the UK for site traffic and so on. Big hitters, in other words. Here it probably isn't an issue, even if we go by the 90-9-1 rule of internet participation I cannot see it generating that much additional interest and so profit.