Trickle down don't work

[robinbanks]

turkeys can be had for £120, I dont see any cost of living crises there.

That makes me feel better about giving my local farmer 70 quid for a 14lb-er

 

[Odds]

One of the biggest privatisations in modern British history is relatively unknown: the mass sale of public land. Since 1979, approximately one-tenth of Britain’s entire territory has been sold off, from council assets to nationally-owned land. By reducing public resources and concentrating ownership, this sell-off has worsened the housing crisis and helped build an economy where wealth is increasingly generated through the ownership of land and the capture of rent.

The scale of privatisation of public land has been matched by the sell-off of public housing. Since the introduction of the Right To Buy scheme in 1980, over two million social homes have been sold, and at a steep discount. More than 40 per cent of homes sold under Right To Buy are now owned by private landlords, typically offering more expensive rent and less secure tenancies. £15bn in local-authority-owned assets sold since 2010 and 20% of the wealth on the 2025 Sunday Times Rich List belonged to people whose listed source of total wealth included land, property or real estate.

Wealth not so much trickling down but flooding up.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

IMO the biggest mistake the left makes is to see the UK as a separate planet, isolated from the rest of the world. Where taxing the rich and handing it to the poor will make everything lovely.

In reality, a lot of "the rich" are based overseas already, and those that are still here will soon clear off if you tax them more, leaving the UK with even less.

Also "the rich" now includes almost everyone who works. This government is mostly on the side of the scrounging classes, not the working classes.

The bad grammar in the "trickle down don't work" title hints at the sort of naive stupid ideas that follow.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

We should concentrate on innovating, inventing and producing stuff that we can sell to the world and get richer as a nation. Also cutting taxes and costs so that producing things here makes financial sense here when comparing basing a company here against other parts of the world.

Then the rich (here) get richer, along with everyone else.

If my pay doubles but my boss's trebles then I'm absolutely fine with that.

 

[blup]

There's two ss in embarrassing, ffs.

Stop harrassing him

 

[carmanmemoranda]

IMO the biggest mistake the left makes is to see the UK as a separate planet, isolated from the rest of the world. Where taxing the rich and handing it to the poor will make everything lovely.

In reality, a lot of "the rich" are based overseas already, and those that are still here will soon clear off if you tax them more, leaving the UK with even less.

Also "the rich" now includes almost everyone who works. This government is mostly on the side of the scrounging classes, not the working classes.

The bad grammar in the "trickle down don't work" title hints at the sort of naive stupid ideas that follow.

Why do you see everything as the fault of the left ?

 

[blup]

IMO the biggest mistake the left makes is to see the UK as a separate planet, isolated from the rest of the world.

Tax rates are much higher in successful economies like Germany which thanks to right wingers supporting Pootin and Trumpf, will emerge once more as Europes premier military.

Where taxing the rich and handing it to the poor will make everything lovely.

It will certainly help public services.

In reality, a lot of "the rich" are based overseas already, and those that are still here will soon clear off if you tax them more, leaving the UK with even less.

Relatively little off the wealth gets transferred abroad, nothing that removing residence rights wouldn’t cure

Also "the rich" now includes almost everyone who works. This government is mostly on the side of the scrounging classes, not the working classes.

Is that from the Re form school of economics?

 

[blup]

One of the biggest privatisations in modern British history is relatively unknown: the mass sale of public land. Since 1979, approximately one-tenth of Britain’s entire territory has been sold off, from council assets to nationally-owned land. By reducing public resources and concentrating ownership, this sell-off has worsened the housing crisis and helped build an economy where wealth is increasingly generated through the ownership of land and the capture of rent.

The scale of privatisation of public land has been matched by the sell-off of public housing. Since the introduction of the Right To Buy scheme in 1980, over two million social homes have been sold, and at a steep discount. More than 40 per cent of homes sold under Right To Buy are now owned by private landlords, typically offering more expensive rent and less secure tenancies. £15bn in local-authority-owned assets sold since 2010 and 20% of the wealth on the 2025 Sunday Times Rich List belonged to people whose listed source of total wealth included land, property or real estate.

Wealth not so much trickling down but flooding up.

I can just about understand a right wing policy of selling housing stock to buy votes, but up to 70% discount was criminal gerrymandering

 

[motorbiking]

Tax should in principle be based on transactions not wealth. Static wealth is the net result of income or capital which has by definition already been taxed, in some cases several times over.

I agree, but making a gain on your home is no different than making a gain on your stocks.

Tax rates are much higher in successful economies like Germany which thanks to right wingers supporting Pootin and Trumpf, will emerge once more as Europes premier military.

Where taxing the rich and handing it to the poor will make everything lovely.

It will certainly help public services.

Relatively little off the wealth gets transferred abroad, nothing that removing residence rights wouldn’t cure

Is that from the Re form school of economics?

If I move to Dubai for a few years, where do you think my income taxes will go. Not the U.K.

Also for a fair comparison with Germany you need to consider our pension contributions as part of the tax since Germany has a state pension set at 50% of income.

 

[diy_fun_uk]

More than 40 per cent of homes sold under Right To Buy are now owned by private landlords, typically offering more expensive rent and less secure tenancies.

Two of my BTLs are ex council properties, although they were already privately owned when I bought them and probably had been for a while.

My rents sit below what I could achieve.

Both the tenants have said private renting suits them fine.

Scottish tenancies are very secure, actually it can easily be asserted tenants up here have more rights in the landlord-tenant relationship than the landlord does.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

Right to buy was unwanted asset disposal. The councils were spending fortunes fixing them, many were beyond their intended lifespan.

You can see the ones that were bought on many estates now - they're the ones with the old windows and cracked roof tiles.

Many council estates were no-go zones before the right to buy. The early buyers were very brave. Private ownership has changed the tone of many estates, once people have ownership they have pride in the place.

The huge discounts were only a payback of the vast amounts the tenant had already paid in rent.

Council housing needs reform - it should be for short-term need with a time limit to sort your own life out. As it is, it's for VIPs who know how to work the system and end up with lifetime tenancies way below market rent while depriving others in greater need.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Right to buy was unwanted asset disposal.

Yes in a few cases. plus buying support from others in most.

The councils were spending fortunes fixing them, many were beyond their intended lifespan.

So sell them and reinvest on new stock is a good move. But that didn't happen so all that resulted was a loss of council housing stock.

You can see the ones that were bought on many estates now - they're the ones with the old windows and cracked roof tiles.

Disagree. Or are you saying those with privately owned ones aren't proud of them.

Many council estates were no-go zones before the right to buy. The early buyers were very brave. Private ownership has changed the tone of many estates, once people have ownership they have pride in the place.

So what do you think renting encourages?

The huge discounts were only a payback of the vast amounts the tenant had already paid in rent.

Irrelevant. That house could have been used for the next tenant. Why should other taxpayers subsidise an existing tenant.

Council housing needs reform - it should be for short-term need with a time limit to sort your own life out.

Agreed, apart from some necessary lifelong needs

As it is, it's for VIPs who know how to work the system and end up with lifetime tenancies way below market rent while depriving others in greater need.

Selling it off cheaply is playing into the hands of multi property owners, some good. Some not good

Tenancy rentals can and should move with inflation.

 

[motorbiking]

Yes in a few cases. plus buying support from others in most.

So sell them and reinvest on new stock is a good move. But that didn't happen so all that resulted was a loss of council housing stock.

Disagree. Or are you saying those with privately owned ones aren't proud of them.

So what do you think renting encourages?

Irrelevant. That house could have been used for the next tenant. Why should other taxpayers subsidise an existing tenant.


Agreed, apart from some necessary lifelong needs

Selling it off cheaply is playing into the hands of multi property owners, some good. Some not good

Tenancy rentals can and should move with inflation.

Right to buy rules pretty much exclude property development models.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Right to buy rules pretty much exclude property development models.

So people can't replace cracked windows and tiles, which was the point

Ok

 

[motorbiking]

So people can't replace cracked windows and tiles, which was the point

Ok

I think the point being made was that it relieves the council of the burden of maintaining them.

Hence all the ones they retain have new windows, because they are required to spend on them.

That is how I read it anyway.

I personally love the idea of councils selling homes and using the profits to build new.. a sort of state owned property developer. As long as they outsource it to experts it would make a huge dent in housing needs.