TiF: This change is unlikely to help councils build new homes. Business rates are not levied on residential propertiesso there is no tax income stream against which to borrow. And there are clear inconsistencies between this idea and the general policy to reduce public sector borrowing. Under British rules, any borrowing by an entity inwhich the public sector holds the majority ownership countsagainst the PSBR. Thus, TiF borrowing will be no different. This announcement is therefore I suspect a little disingenuous. Which as it comes from Clegg is hardly surprising...
Welfare built aroundwork: And the jobsare where exactly? 478,000 vacancies in the uK and 2.46 million on out of work benefits. In work poverty rising at an incredible rate. Making work pay means the government, on our collective behalf, providing or supporting the jobs (for example, don't axe loans to big engineering companies in Sheffield, Clegg, who may have been in a position to provide a job or two, try buying the odd British product like say army trucks from Leyland and not MAN or housing associations running fleets of Astras instead of Audis) and making sure those jobs pay a living wage (so maybe make companies, especially those based on exporting jobs and importing unemployment - banks spring to mind here - pay the full cost of their low wage policies by taxing them more to reduce tax rates and increase in work credits for the workers). What Clegg really means is that benefitswill be reducedso far that peoplewill take any kind of work to if only to halfway survive. Those that don't will be forced to the jobs - for welfare only - that used to be done by state employees until they were laid off. Oh yes, and we could reduce the cost of housing by building more homes, clamping down on private landlords (a form of parastic activity as destructive as banking sucking money out of thesystem and forcingworking people to work to make a small number rich) and as we did after the Second World War, using the power of the state to acquire the land that is needed for the homes that are needed.
Just one thing on the private landlord issue - why is it that the CiH and lots of other commentators seem so keen to subsidise one person to own 100 houses (e.g. the arguments for tax breaks etc for private landlords) and so against subsidising 100 people to own 100 homes (e.g. helping individuals buy a home of their own or councils to build homes on behalf of the whole community)?