From The Sun:
THE Government’s Help to Buy scheme has benefited more rich than poor households, a new report found amid claims that the scheme is a “major failure”...
Shockingly, around one in 20 households who use the scheme earn over £100,000.
The flagship scheme has also boosted profits of the country’s three largest developers – Persimmon, Barratt and Taylor Wimpey.
According to Shelter, all three have managed to more than double their reported profits in under six years, with Barratt seeing the greatest profit rise of 325 per cent.
Sunday, 1 September 2019
Wowzers! Who would have expected that?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
You really should not have supported the Labour Land Campaign. Have you seen Labours proposals for 'help to sell' by forcing landlords to sell to millennial snowflakes?
RS, it's a great idea and stop slagging them all off as snowflakes. They have perfectly legitimate grievances.
Its only a great idea if it works. LVT has been a historic failure too. It's time to accept this and focus energy on something more innovative... unless thought has been captured by some king of cult.
Everyone has plenty of legitimate grievances. If we teach our children to follow the doctrine of grievances, who's to say we won't end up in a world like today?
@RS - "LVT has been a historic failure" - where exactly has it been a failure? I know of 2 success stories - simulated LVT, aka georgism-lite in the post WW2 UK (described in https://www.landisfree.co.uk/sa65-housing-crisis-what-housing-crisis-by-mark-wadsworth/) and Singapore with its Singapore Land Authority (not sure of the details). It would be good to maintain list of LVT / georgism success stories. It would be good if "somebody" could do it ;-)
Neither of these are LVT. But lets assume, for arguments sake, they are. How do you account for the continued economic and political suffering in those lands?
Back to planet earth though - by "failure", I mean: in spite of:
* its obvious technical perfection in theory
* the knowledge being known by very well educated people everywhere
* the majority in all times and places understanding the rational and moral aspects
... no people have ever wanted it. Do you agree?
Even if one or two have actually wanted it, there are 300 other nations who do not. Would you class that as a success story, or a doctrine in serious need of innovation?
Never fear, there is such an innovation: Location Value Covenants. Where those who see they'll benefit from it, will offer their economic rents, voluntarily. Let me know if you need more detail.
It would be good to maintain list of LVT / georgism success stories. It would be good if "somebody" could do it ;-)
Jeffery J. Smith did it! You can find it here:
WHERE A TAX REFORM HAS WORKED: 28 CASE SUMMARIES
http://tinyurl.com/y2ejzdkf
@RS
"the knowledge being known by very well educated people everywhere" - I disagree from personal experience. I discovered plenty of people have no idea who Henry George or David Ricardo was, even economics graduates. (1) People graduate from economics departments not even realising that economists disagree between each other, as a norm, unlike say physicists. They see current neo-liberal synthesis as the current consensus in "the economics research". (2) Generally knowledgeable non-economists see public disputes on economics as taking position between the left (socialism) and the right (free market) - moving along one dimension only.
"the majority in all times and places understanding the rational and moral aspects" - I disagree there is this understanding of moral superiority of LVT, plenty of arguments against LVT try to undermine it from moral perspective, like describing those who are left disadvantageous by rent-seekers as "snowflakes", and LVTers as those who try to capture hard earned wealth.
"Location Value Covenants" - never heard of it, I will google in the afternoon, sure, please drop some pointers.
@P - excellent, thanks!
@Pablo, thank you for reinforcing my point so well - there are at least 3 entries for Denmark. Clearly they keep trying :))))))
@Piotr - why do these people need to know who Henry George was. I'm talking about the doctrine itself technically and practically?
I have plenty of experience too. But I fear you've missed my point. Which is... that once clever people understand what is being said, they tend to turn into the strongest force opposing it(sadly because they only use their intellect). Fred Harrison is perfect exposition. He went to Russia and told them very precisely what they needed not to do. And they didn't do it, very well indeed. And the man has been bitter and spiteful about it ever since.
Out of all movements I've worked with, possibly with the exception of Marxism, Georgism is the most blind on this collective psychology.
Did you overlook my offer on Location Value Covenants?
@ Piotr
My apologies, this is a good place to start on LVC's:
https://sites.google.com/site/systemicfiscalreform/land-value-convenants-vs-mortgages
The prime difficulty Georgists have with LVC's is they don't punish land owners. This observation has been quite astonishing. Because psychologically its a clear signal G's do not really care about the homeless, but only hate land owners. A very limited world view. See Goerge Orwells 'Road to Wigan Peer' for similar.
@RS - I will read this link, thanks, however I am astonished that you say "G's do not really care about the homeless, but only hate land owners." - what? Maybe this link will shed some light on that surprising conclusion.
As of your previous comments, you lost me. First you wrote that Georgism as "its obvious technical perfection in theory", I understand it is as judged by clever people, and then you wrote "once clever people understand what is being said, they tend to turn into the strongest force opposing it", which is the opposite. Same with " the knowledge being known by very well educated people everywhere" and then "Georgism is the most blind on this collective psychology." So again, which is it?
@Piotr
'Clever' people can more easily use their intellect to oppose reason. George himself spoke very well about this psychology. Its quite sad the intellect is abused in this way. It also points to how its a bad idea to rely on the intellect to judge these matters.
Is that clear?
PW, you've humoured him long enough. I hope you realise he's a troll?
Gordon Bennett!
RS, the "failure" of LVT, as you put it, can be adequately explained by the fact that it is a tax disproportionally paid by the people with their hands on the levers of power, i.e. the rich. These people have the means to stop it being introduced and, in the rare cases where they fail at that, they have the means to sabotage it.
Bayard. I see your point. And everyone has the ability to act. More importantly, no government or tyrant was ever elected by a minority so we willingly elected all of them. Finally, do these "rich" you mention include the 17 million mortgagor speculators? They seem like a brexit majority to me
"More importantly, no government or tyrant was ever elected by a minority so we willingly elected all of them."
Not so. Given that turnouts are usually round the 30% mark, most, if not all, governments are elected by a minority. That's the beauty of the First Past The Post system for the governing elite, and no, that doesn't include your man with a mortgage in the street. Such people overwhelmingly neither know nor care about LVT.
Bayard, the majority depends on the electoral system. So far across history, every election has found a majority, else how did the winner get found? Doh! Who cares if it was not an overall majority, we all know the rules when we approach the ballot. Its why PR is such a childish fantasy like citizens welfare. Same rules apply where there was no election, such as a dictatorship. Even then, an implicit majority selected the tyrant every time, else he would not have remained standing. The collective *always* determines the despotic father, be that a tyrant or democrat.
Post a Comment