Jono
England
Living life as it is, not as it ought to be.
Recent activity
Comments (739)
-
Comment on: Direct payment could double rent arrears
Goodbye social housing...or...goodbye non-rent-paying tenants. Which would you prefer?
-
Comment on: Housing benefit claims reach record level
Maybe the government should create zones - less than median market rent and greater than median market rent (low zones and high zones). If someone in a highzone is claiming HB for more than a year, they should be compelled to relocate to a low zone in order to continue to qualify for state support. That way there is a time incentive to become independent - if this is not achieved, there will still be support, but to qualify you must move to a more affordable area.
I think this would significantly reduce the benefits bill - numbers of claims, value and duration of claims would all come down.
It would also spread out demand - at the moment demand in value terms and density is excessive in London. -
Comment on: Landlords to float on stock exchange
A classic case of the principal-agent problem Kevin - one which will be difficult to reconcile, no doubt.
-
Comment on: Labour strategy to target private rented sector
"I think this is wrong, because it puts the profit motive above all other considerations. Governments should be operating on a higher moral plane than that."
What happens to businesses that aren't motivated to make a profit?
The attack on the private sector continues. BTW I hope you set your hostage free soon Gavin. -
Comment on: Landlord and contractor scrap £45m repairs deal
Wherever you look in this sector, there are significant, costly issues with repairs and contracts for repairs. It must be the area of least VFM.
Discussions (3)
-
£50 billion to be spent on homes & infrastructure?
From Reuters:
"The Sunday Times said Osborne wants private sector money held by pension fund managers and insurance companies to fund the infrastructure programme to boost the recovery. -
Affordable housing?
Nearly a year ago, Alex Morton of Policy Exchange published a response to this question, entitled:
Making housing affordable: A new vision for housing policy
See PDF: -
Fitness to work
A recent article on the BBC suggests that only 7% of people claiming sickness benefits were unable to do any sort of work. 75% of 1.3 million applicants dropped out or were deemed fit to work:
Posts (54)
-
Posted in: Housing Action Collapse - the shape of things to come?
Thanks Chris.
Two points to respond to.
1) by your social evolution comment, I think what you are saying is that people would choose to keep their money and not help anyone. It is a matter of their earnings; my view is they should judge how to spend it and on what. Just because my neighbour is unkind, I do not have any right to take his money so that I can be more kind.
Many people in this country are kind though. For example, the Tsunami appeal saw generous, voluntary giving of support. Look at the latest generosity following the sad death of the marathon runner Claire Squires. Despite high levels of tax, people are generous in their support of charities as it stands now.
2) Charitable donations and tax 'efficiency' - under the system I think we both support - one with a flat % tax rate on earned income only, it would be impossible to engage in this sort of behaviour. Either you would pay Additional Voluntary Tax to support the welfare system, or donate to charities. There would be no tax advantage from donating. You would only donate to charities because you want them to be successful in their purpose.
The rich of the moral fibre you describe have those values of ethics because our system rewards them. We have a system which rewards people for coercing rules in favour of one collective or another. That is one reason why I believe in the primacy of the individual and dislike collectives backed with the force of Government. If you have a system which is premised on respect for the individual rights of every individual, you will not have one that passes laws, regulation, directives, grants, subsidies etc to the benefit of some individuals but to the cost of others. You will instead have a truly laissez-faire capitalism - not the corrupt and mixed economy we have now.
Those with the ethics you describe will find what they once considered to be virtues have now become impractical - because the state would have no power to interfere in the economy (other than perhaps through the money supply and general level of taxation). This would be far more powerful agent of 'social evolution' than all the regulation and compulsion we are faced with now as a restraining jacket. -
Posted in: Housing Action Collapse - the shape of things to come?
Chris - of course whenever you change from one system to another there are difficulties. People are notorious for reacting badly to change.
What I am calling for is nothing like the situation which preceded the Poor Laws. I am not calling for a Feudal system, or for most individuals to fear God, or for a reversal of modern technology back to the time when the printing press hadn't been around very long, or for an economy in which there is mass starvation, etc. Now and then are two incomparable periods. We can achieve things now we couldn't over 400 years ago.
It's interesting because the system I propose would enable you to exercise the judgement you arrived at - you could decide to fund the Government using your earnings through Additional Voluntary Taxation to support its Welfare system. Or instead, you could choose how much, if any, to give to private charities - according to whether you judge the money to be well spent or not. Currently you do not even have this choice.
This is why private charities are failing, and the welfare state continues to be the tax funded wrecking machine that it is. There is no choice. Our disposable incomes are being exhausted through taxes (both direct and stealth) and we have no real say. Government workers are spending our money on meeting the social needs they judge are important. I say we individually should be the ones judging what social needs are important to us, and back that judgement up with our own money. -
Posted in: Housing Action Collapse - the shape of things to come?
"Does the collapse of Housing Action indicate that relying on charity to meet social need risks failure?"
In a word - no. Any endeavour has a risk of failure - so this does not indicate anything new.
Let's focus on positives - what is likely to make 'private charities' more successful at meeting social need (as defined by individual charities and whoever contributes to funding them)? The Government is actually a large monopolistic competitor to charities meeting social need. Let me explain this.
There are many people who would choose to be benevolent. However, a lot of their income and spending is taxed which reduces the amount left over for supporting charities. Individuals can't opt out of 'Government charity' otherwise known as the welfare system, as tax evasion is considered a crime. Individuals don't have a meaningful say in how their contributions to the welfare system will be spent, meaning they have little involvement in directing what social needs their money will go on. The Government is monopolistic when it comes to meeting social needs - does it have to be?
A lot of talk goes on about how the Government should emulate the private market and be competitive. Why not make it discretionary whether or not individuals fund the welfare system (through 'Additional Voluntary Taxation'), or direct their tax money to charities meeting social needs instead (as judged individually). At the moment, charities are so starved of contributions that they are constantly begging for crumbs from the Government, and there is no good reason why the system must be so.
Give people the choice of which charity to fund, and let them keep more of their earnings so they have the means to act on that choice. I think we would see 'private charities' grow and become very successful, and meet more social needs than are met now. Not that the Government will entertain any withdrawal of its interference into our economic affairs. After all, little people like us are too stupid and incompetent to be trusted with making such decisions - we need high salaried bureaucrats to make them for us... let's challenge this thinking. -
Posted in: S21 notice given in advance of any problems
Nonny Nonny
"Yes, go on with your antitenant travesty..." What was it I wrote that was both a travesty of justice and detrimental to tenants?
"How many measures, checks, controls, etc. have been brought in for landlords to keep social tenants on a leash?..." None? Perhaps you can give an example?
ASB - if you cause a nuisance to those around you, and non-payment of rent- taking the benefits of what the landlord is obligated to give to you, and not fulfilling your obligation to pay the rent in return for that, seems to me to be two examples where the landlord has every right to take action against you.
"And how many new powers have been given to tenants to keep in check their landlords?... None..." Tenants have a tenancy agreement - and a range of laws relating to it which is empowering.
You could always save, or advance your career and either move into private accommodation or buy a home. That way you would liberate yourself from your evil social landlord who provides you with a property, maintains it for you and probably does other things to try and improve your local community, all for a rent which probably doesn't cover all its costs or afford the building of new homes.
-
Posted in: S21 notice given in advance of any problems
Hey Nonny Nonny
Careful - you are playing with my words. I asked if there was evidence of a landlord using the S21 to intimidate tenants - not if there was evidence of landlords intimidating tenants per se. As apparently you think the S21 is being used as a leash.
What would such an equivalent be Nonny Nonny? Something that takes tenants a short amount of time, doesn't cost much. How about someone comes up with...a Notice To Quit? Oh, too late.
There should be no control by either party over the other Nonny. We are all adults, and need to act like it. Tenants should be free to enjoy their homes in return for keeping to their part of the agreement (you know tenancy agreements do set out obligations on the part of both tenants and landlords), and landlords should enjoy the benefits of permitting you access to live in their home, in return for keeping to their part of the agreement. That's how it should work - no intimidation involved. Is that so foolish?