blonde poker forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 29, 2024, 06:08:13 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
2272476 Posts in 66752 Topics by 16945 Members
Latest Member: Zula
* Home Help Arcade Search Calendar Guidelines Login Register
+  blonde poker forum
|-+  Community Forums
| |-+  The Lounge
| | |-+  The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged
0 Members and 15 Guests are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Poll
Question: How will you vote on December 12th 2019
Conservative - 19 (33.9%)
Labour - 12 (21.4%)
SNP - 2 (3.6%)
Lib Dem - 8 (14.3%)
Brexit - 1 (1.8%)
Green - 6 (10.7%)
Other - 2 (3.6%)
Spoil - 0 (0%)
Not voting - 6 (10.7%)
Total Voters: 55

Pages: 1 ... 1494 1495 1496 1497 [1498] 1499 1500 1501 1502 ... 1533 Go Down Print
Author Topic: The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged  (Read 2180811 times)
kukushkin88
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3892



View Profile
« Reply #22455 on: December 10, 2019, 01:31:37 PM »


State owned, good quality, rented, genuinely affordable housing, the exchequer can spend the proceeds on the NHS if it thinks it prudent to do so.
Logged
Jon MW
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6191



View Profile
« Reply #22456 on: December 10, 2019, 01:36:52 PM »


State owned, good quality, rented, genuinely affordable housing, the exchequer can spend the proceeds on the NHS if it thinks it prudent to do so.

The state building houses - particularly council houses to rent is one of the socialist ideas I fully support.

But if they're making the profit instead of the private individuals - how are the renters benefitting?

And if they're making it affordable and benefitting the tenants - how would they have any profit to divert into the NHS?
Logged

Jon "the British cowboy" Woodfield

2011 blonde MTT League August Champion
2011 UK Team Championships: Black Belt Poker Team Captain  - - runners up - -
5 Star HORSE Classic - 2007 Razz Champion
2007 WSOP Razz - 13/341
RED-DOG
International Lover World Wide Playboy
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 46911



View Profile WWW
« Reply #22457 on: December 10, 2019, 01:43:55 PM »



The total cost of politicians renumeration is less than 0.2% of the NHS budget, potentially taxing cannabis sales could raise up to 0.5% of the NHS budget. NHS efficiency is hard to measure but I'd be surprised if there was a huge amount you could save - I'd start with procurement practises rather than management costs though.

Basically apart from the open ended option of 'more tax' the amount extra you'd get to spend would be such a low proportion of the existing budget that it wouldn't be enough to change anything.



You forgot the "Whatever it takes" option.
Logged

The older I get, the better I was.
kukushkin88
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3892



View Profile
« Reply #22458 on: December 10, 2019, 01:48:20 PM »


State owned, good quality, rented, genuinely affordable housing, the exchequer can spend the proceeds on the NHS if it thinks it prudent to do so.

The state building houses - particularly council houses to rent is one of the socialist ideas I fully support.

But if they're making the profit instead of the private individuals - how are the renters benefitting?

And if they're making it affordable and benefitting the tenants - how would they have any profit to divert into the NHS?

Surely at the moment rent levels are set by profiteering private individuals, cut them out of the situation. Build quality affordable housing, set rent at the appropriate level and a large portion of that income should be available to the exchequer. Correct me of course if I’m missing something.
Logged
mulhuzz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3022



View Profile
« Reply #22459 on: December 10, 2019, 02:22:06 PM »

It’s certainly a good point that Blair benefitted from a booming economy, Thatcher did as well of course but didn’t spend the money on the NHS. Do you think austerity contributed to how poorly our economy has performed since 2010?

it is unarguable, to the economically literate, that this is the case. The whole idea of austerity economics has been shown to be based on a fundamentally flawed model and was ideologically rammed through anyway because fuck the consequences and the poor.
Logged
Jon MW
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6191



View Profile
« Reply #22460 on: December 10, 2019, 02:22:45 PM »


State owned, good quality, rented, genuinely affordable housing, the exchequer can spend the proceeds on the NHS if it thinks it prudent to do so.

The state building houses - particularly council houses to rent is one of the socialist ideas I fully support.

But if they're making the profit instead of the private individuals - how are the renters benefitting?

And if they're making it affordable and benefitting the tenants - how would they have any profit to divert into the NHS?

Surely at the moment rent levels are set by profiteering private individuals, cut them out of the situation. Build quality affordable housing, set rent at the appropriate level and a large portion of that income should be available to the exchequer. Correct me of course if I’m missing something.

If you're making rent affordable than most of that income would have to pay for ongoing maintenance, further building etc.

i.e. If you take out the excess profit (however that much is) but you maintain a high level of coverage and service then you're not left with an excess income (and any peaks where you do get some would probably be best served to build up strategic reserve levels for recessions).
Logged

Jon "the British cowboy" Woodfield

2011 blonde MTT League August Champion
2011 UK Team Championships: Black Belt Poker Team Captain  - - runners up - -
5 Star HORSE Classic - 2007 Razz Champion
2007 WSOP Razz - 13/341
kukushkin88
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3892



View Profile
« Reply #22461 on: December 10, 2019, 02:32:58 PM »


State owned, good quality, rented, genuinely affordable housing, the exchequer can spend the proceeds on the NHS if it thinks it prudent to do so.

The state building houses - particularly council houses to rent is one of the socialist ideas I fully support.

But if they're making the profit instead of the private individuals - how are the renters benefitting?

And if they're making it affordable and benefitting the tenants - how would they have any profit to divert into the NHS?

Surely at the moment rent levels are set by profiteering private individuals, cut them out of the situation. Build quality affordable housing, set rent at the appropriate level and a large portion of that income should be available to the exchequer. Correct me of course if I’m missing something.

If you're making rent affordable than most of that income would have to pay for ongoing maintenance, further building etc.

i.e. If you take out the excess profit (however that much is) but you maintain a high level of coverage and service then you're not left with an excess income (and any peaks where you do get some would probably be best served to build up strategic reserve levels for recessions).

I always thought that being a private landlord was usually highly profitable, again someone let me know if I’m wrong. All we’d be doing would be diverting an appropriate proportion of that surplus in to the public purse.
Logged
Jon MW
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6191



View Profile
« Reply #22462 on: December 10, 2019, 02:39:14 PM »


State owned, good quality, rented, genuinely affordable housing, the exchequer can spend the proceeds on the NHS if it thinks it prudent to do so.

The state building houses - particularly council houses to rent is one of the socialist ideas I fully support.

But if they're making the profit instead of the private individuals - how are the renters benefitting?

And if they're making it affordable and benefitting the tenants - how would they have any profit to divert into the NHS?

Surely at the moment rent levels are set by profiteering private individuals, cut them out of the situation. Build quality affordable housing, set rent at the appropriate level and a large portion of that income should be available to the exchequer. Correct me of course if I’m missing something.

If you're making rent affordable than most of that income would have to pay for ongoing maintenance, further building etc.

i.e. If you take out the excess profit (however that much is) but you maintain a high level of coverage and service then you're not left with an excess income (and any peaks where you do get some would probably be best served to build up strategic reserve levels for recessions).

I always thought that being a private landlord was usually highly profitable, again someone let me know if I’m wrong. All we’d be doing would be diverting an appropriate proportion of that surplus in to the public purse.

I feel like it's repeating myself a bit, but I'll try;

if being a private landlord is profitable - and that's exploitative,

then being a non-exploitative government landlord - will not be as profitable, and possibly not profitable at all.
Logged

Jon "the British cowboy" Woodfield

2011 blonde MTT League August Champion
2011 UK Team Championships: Black Belt Poker Team Captain  - - runners up - -
5 Star HORSE Classic - 2007 Razz Champion
2007 WSOP Razz - 13/341
kukushkin88
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3892



View Profile
« Reply #22463 on: December 10, 2019, 02:48:40 PM »


State owned, good quality, rented, genuinely affordable housing, the exchequer can spend the proceeds on the NHS if it thinks it prudent to do so.

The state building houses - particularly council houses to rent is one of the socialist ideas I fully support.

But if they're making the profit instead of the private individuals - how are the renters benefitting?

And if they're making it affordable and benefitting the tenants - how would they have any profit to divert into the NHS?

Surely at the moment rent levels are set by profiteering private individuals, cut them out of the situation. Build quality affordable housing, set rent at the appropriate level and a large portion of that income should be available to the exchequer. Correct me of course if I’m missing something.

If you're making rent affordable than most of that income would have to pay for ongoing maintenance, further building etc.

i.e. If you take out the excess profit (however that much is) but you maintain a high level of coverage and service then you're not left with an excess income (and any peaks where you do get some would probably be best served to build up strategic reserve levels for recessions).

I always thought that being a private landlord was usually highly profitable, again someone let me know if I’m wrong. All we’d be doing would be diverting an appropriate proportion of that surplus in to the public purse.

I feel like it's repeating myself a bit, but I'll try;

if being a private landlord is profitable - and that's exploitative,

then being a non-exploitative government landlord - will not be as profitable, and possibly not profitable at all.

It does feel like we’re going round in circles a bit 😊. I’m just saying a bit less profitable, a bit less exploitative and none of the money is wasted on making already wealthy people, wealthier. I’m convinced there is a significant profit margin. Even if it was precisely the same as the current system in terms of profitability/exploitation but all of the money went in to the public purse, that seems preferable to the current situation.
Logged
Pokerpops
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1423


View Profile
« Reply #22464 on: December 10, 2019, 03:11:56 PM »

When you propose a ban on ‘private citizens renting to private citizens’ are you aiming this at just individual landlords or would you include people with a portfolio of properties? How about companies that have properties that are rented out?
Would you be taking all existing tenanted property into state ownership?
Holiday homes that are rented out on short term lets?

How about properties like this one?
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-53869510.html

Why do you think that the state will be able to manage such an enterprise more effectively than private enterprise?

Logged

"More than at any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly."
teddybloat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 755


View Profile
« Reply #22465 on: December 10, 2019, 03:14:18 PM »

with regards to austerity mike munger has said:

Quote
Still, why would anyone want austerity? Isn’t it a bad idea? Actually, yes, it is a bad idea. So is cutting open someone’s abdomen with a razor sharp blade. But if that person’s appendix is about to burst, the knife cut is the best of bad options.

kush, you would have the state make voluntary arrangements illegal between private individuals?

say you make private renting illegal, what do you think happens to housing prices? pretty much anyone who has bought a property in the last ten years would be in negative equity. would the state then hoover up all this low cost fire sale housing?

without the price mechanism how would the government price up renting? how would it ensure it was profitable? how many beaurcrats would it take to centrally plan this purchasing, maintaining and management of rental stock? how much would that add to the cost.

what would you do to support the many retired people who will have lost their modest rental income, or lost a tonne of their net worth when forced to sell their property to the state at a cut price?
Logged
teddybloat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 755


View Profile
« Reply #22466 on: December 10, 2019, 03:17:11 PM »

this is exactly why corbyn is so dangerous.

imposition on private citizens, an erosion of property rights and a hatred of profit

you could not think of a more dangerous, less economically illiterate way of looking at running a modern economy
Logged
kukushkin88
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3892



View Profile
« Reply #22467 on: December 10, 2019, 03:17:26 PM »

When you propose a ban on ‘private citizens renting to private citizens’ are you aiming this at just individual landlords or would you include people with a portfolio of properties? How about companies that have properties that are rented out?
Would you be taking all existing tenanted property into state ownership?
Holiday homes that are rented out on short term lets?

How about properties like this one?
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-53869510.html

Why do you think that the state will be able to manage such an enterprise more effectively than private enterprise?


Efficiency would be a secondary consideration behind a fairer distribution of wealth, I don’t see why it should be less efficient though. It would apply only to places where people lived permanently. All of the ‘types’ of landlord you mention would be included yes.
Logged
RED-DOG
International Lover World Wide Playboy
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 46911



View Profile WWW
« Reply #22468 on: December 10, 2019, 03:21:29 PM »



Wow!

That's only £6.44 per minute. I could make love to Mrs Red in there for less than £20.
Logged

The older I get, the better I was.
kukushkin88
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3892



View Profile
« Reply #22469 on: December 10, 2019, 03:23:27 PM »

with regards to austerity mike munger has said:

Quote
Still, why would anyone want austerity? Isn’t it a bad idea? Actually, yes, it is a bad idea. So is cutting open someone’s abdomen with a razor sharp blade. But if that person’s appendix is about to burst, the knife cut is the best of bad options.

kush, you would have the state make voluntary arrangements illegal between private individuals?

say you make private renting illegal, what do you think happens to housing prices? pretty much anyone who has bought a property in the last ten years would be in negative equity. would the state then hoover up all this low cost fire sale housing?

without the price mechanism how would the government price up renting? how would it ensure it was profitable? how many beaurcrats would it take to centrally plan this purchasing, maintaining and management of rental stock? how much would that add to the cost.

what would you do to support the many retired people who will have lost their modest rental income, or lost a tonne of their net worth when forced to sell their property to the state at a cut price?

We can’t view it in the context of the current broken and failing system. The type of capitalism we have conflicts entirely with how things need to be taken forward (primarily environmental considerations), I accept there’ll be plenty of tearing up the status quo to be done.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 1494 1495 1496 1497 [1498] 1499 1500 1501 1502 ... 1533 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.272 seconds with 22 queries.