To think Corbyn's maths is wrong again

[Rebeccaslicker]

www.google.co.uk/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/28/jeremy-corbyn-announces-labour-will-buy-every-homeless-person/amp/

How is this going to work? Does he mean "give" as in legally transfer or does he mean no rent? How does he think the houses are going to be maintained and utility bills paid? Is it fair on people who've been on waiting lists? Is it really going to reduce the numbers of homeless people if it becomes seen as a quick way to skip the queue?

I got back to my car in an NCP the other night, to find 5 homeless people right next to it with foil and needles. They were also going through some wallets (which may well have been their own; I didn't stop to check of course). The state of them was very sad and although I did feel intimidated at first, I also didn't report them because I thought, where else would they go - it's chucking it down. But then again, no way would they be able to look after a house. They were like zombies.

He's absolutely right to want to do something about the homeless situation. There should be more lots more help. But I don't think this is the answer. AIBU?

*Eton or a less expensive SCHOOL, not food! (Where did food come from? Eton mess?!)

If you earn £120k a year, after tax you take home about £73k, or £6k a month. Let's assume you have a mortgage of about £2k a month and then council tax and other bills come to say £600 a month, assuming you have sky and mobile phone. Assume travel at about £150 a month. That leaves about £800 or so a week for things like service charge or repairs (depending on whether you live in a flat or a house), food, clothes, socialising, car and petrol, insurance premiums, holidays. If you have a family, that has to cover everyone, and you can add childcare to that too. You also won't get any child benefit or 30 hours a week childcare on that salary.

£800 a week is very bloody comfortable and nobody is saying it isn't, unless they're stupid or stealth boasting. But it's clearly not super rich territory. How far do you think people would accept that being pruned before they said, hmmm, I could earn more abroad or, hmmmm, I can't afford to live here any more, or hmmmm, why am I doing this job for such a reduced reward? £100 a month? £100 a week? £100 a day?

Believe me, whiskyowl, I wouldn't be you for the world either. Nor would I have any desire to live in your woolly academic bubble world.

A housing crash would be good for a lot of people who are renting

But it would be bad for pretty much everyone who currently owns a house. All a crash would do is redistribute the housing from those who currently own (who would be plunged into negative equity and therefore forced to declare bankruptcy and repossessed) and those who currently rent (who would be able to to buy). The housing supply would not increase - just some people would lose homes while others would gain them. The banks would lose billions due to the reduced value of the repossessed houses.

In practice, unless there was also a huge recession that forced people to sell because they could no longer afford to pay their mortgages, the majority would be unable to sell for less than they paid (because of negative equity) and would simply sit tight and wait for prices to go back up, thus causing the housing market to stagnate.

only for the surrounding houses to become council owned properties occupied by addicts, alcoholics, etc.

The hatred for the poor is shameful.

Tory Social Darwinism again.

Too, Tory debt is ballooning. Where are their costings?

whiskyowl

There is an underlying moral issue here around that word "lifestyle", and this gets to the heart of the disagreement between us. I believe that no-one is "entitled" to a gilded lifestyle while someone else struggles and suffers on too little.

What a load of sanctimonious bullshit. There are plenty of people in the UK and around the world who are utterly destitute, while you live a life that they would most certainly call "gilded" by comparison.

So given your moralistic statement above, why have you not already liquidated all your "surplus" assets - house, car, personal effects, etc - and redistributed the proceeds to those who need it more? Why are you waiting for a Corbyn Government to extort from you what you could voluntarily do today, given how deep your feelings are about this pressing moral emergency?

Pinkerton - she's answered that already. See, whiskyowl (and her DP and all her friends) would all LOVE to pay more tax.

The ONLY thing stopping them from doing that now and making a gift, or doing as you suggest, is that they couldn't possibly bear to give it to the tories with their current policies. As soon as Corbyn gets in, they'll be doing just that, no doubt.

Convenient isn't it?!

Rebecca
I’ve just explained why cgt on homes is a nightmare on another thread. One large pitfall is that it would require people to have accounts for the entire time a person owned their property, which could date back say 40 years when they added an extension or even built their own home. Legally right now accounts need to be kept for a minimum of 5 years. Perhaps going forward. But retrospectively isn’t possible. And I thought that was what stamp duty was for. It is always possible to increase this but not for the ftb for example to cool the market.

makeourfutures
No that isn’t what I said. Hindsight is a glorious thing. Getting upset with me for having had access to free university education makes no sense. I am stating the facts without judgment. Of course it’s unfair. But the government had to do something.

I’ve been out of pocket due to governmental cutbacks and changes, which equate to far far more than that of my education costs. I fund all my health costs for example, without which i would quite possibly bed bound of in a wheelchair as many others are.

This is also incredibly infuriating and I feel disenfranchised. However, philosophically the government can’t do everything and has to raise money for all manner of reasons including giving a portion of it to the younger generation, I’m sure. Don’t assume because I’ve had free education I don’t also feel fucked over.

Why are you waiting for a Corbyn Government to extort from you what you could voluntarily do today, given how deep your feelings are about this pressing moral emergency?

Societal problems.

What happened to Cameron's Big Society?

In the 60s and 70s, I think, the Labour Party then in power raised taxes to unbelievable levels, say 80% funnily enough people did not smile and pay up they moved, pop stars and actors to LA and other shifted their money to place like Jersey and lo and behold tax havens were born!

Cause and effect!

I said on a similar thread yesterday - Corbyn is in the position where we are 4 years away from an election he might not even BE Labour leader at that time, who knows what Brexit and so on will bring.

He can promise everyone their own personal unicorn and £1000 in free marshmallows and it's NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Not for at least 4 years, and probably never. And if anyone in 5 years time says "What about the unicorn and the marshmallows, Jezza"? he will just waffle on about economic constraints and whatever.

But yes, man's a numpty. Will never vote Labour while that Momentum shower are in charge.

Sorry Rebecc but you make no sense. Earning £120k puts you in the top 1%

That is the reality.

Talking of super rich is but a way for the rich to divert the question “oh but I’m not super rich”

It also demonstrates just how out of touch people are from the reality of most people in this country.

Over £3000 a month after key outgoings is absolutely shit loads.

And as I already said, those on lower incomes pay more tax overall as a proportion of income.

Homelessness isn’t just about people sleeping under bridges. It is about children crammed into b&bs and bedsits with parents who work. It’s about people not having permanent homes.

It is disgraceful.

Rebecca- Have you any idea what an extra £20, never mind £800 a week, would mean to some families?

People out there are starving, FFS! They are having to choose between heating and food! They can't buy clothes or shoes for their kids, let alone small dignities. Anyone who can turn around in the face of that and say that they "deserve" that £20 to spend on something surplus to needs more than the family who needs it to eat is barking mad.

I honestly think a lot of middle class wealthy families (not the super rich) are rooted and wouldn't want to live abroad. There are some people who are citizens of the world and can up sticks to get a job in another country without blinking, but there are plenty who rely on being close to family, or whose children have needs that are well served locally by nurseries or schools, or who love their neighbourhood, or a local landscape too much to leave it. I'd be willing to bet they'd stay.

I also think that a well-run state benefits the upper middle classes in the kind of earning bracket you mention. A brilliant state school education system, and a well-run NHS would mean that private education and private healthcare expenses would be reduced. They might actually see more benefits than detriments if they pay high levels of school fees.

believe - here and elsewhere on Mumsnet, I love the cut of your jib!

Rebecca you would do well to read more about the reality of living on a median wage and bring to-life what numbers like £20 a week to people means.

What about my post doesn't make sense? Are you really saying someone with £800 a week disposable income and their own home (but mortgaged) is in the same league as david beckham??

It's really not a difficult concept. If you earn that amount, you will have a certain standard of living. Some of the money could be taken away and you wouldn't notice. A bit more and you would, but you wouldn't mind. A bit more than that? More than that? Where's the line - when does it stop being worth it for you? You've already paid in more than £50,000 in income tax for the year, but someone who pays less than you tells you that YOU don't contribute enough - how do you feel about that? Ashamed? Defensive? Angry?

whiskyowl

People out there are starving, FFS! They are having to choose between heating and food! They can't buy clothes or shoes for their kids, let alone small dignities. Anyone who can turn around in the face of that and say that they "deserve" that £20 to spend on something surplus to needs more than the family who needs it to eat is barking mad.

More moralizing guff. So I'll keep asking the question:

Why have you not already liquidated all your "surplus" assets - house, car, personal effects, etc - and redistributed the proceeds to those who need it more? Why are you waiting for a Corbyn Government to extort from you what you could voluntarily do today, given how deep your feelings are about this pressing moral emergency?

It'll be a long wait for an answer, I know!

And yet, whisky, you donate no extra and have done none of the things suggested by a PP. However do you sleep at night??

And a lot of people understand that they are safe and secure and successful because our society provides education, infrastructure, defence, healthcare, etc.

We are a societal species. Thrown into the wild, Sapiens don't fare very well at all on their own.

Oops my first point in my last post I don’t think can have been to you op apologies.

It should have been addressed to Babooshka

There are plenty of people in the UK and around the world who are utterly destitute, while you live a life that they would most certainly call "gilded" by comparison.

Well said. Come on "Whiskeyowl" you pay up instead of yowling at others to do so.

It'll be fine, Comrade Corbyn will look after you.....

The politics of envy......

It's going to take a lot more than just whisky....we are all going to have to contribute more.

"Why have you not already liquidated all your "surplus" assets - house, car, personal effects, etc - and redistributed the proceeds to those who need it more? Why are you waiting for a Corbyn Government to extort from you what you could voluntarily do today, given how deep your feelings are about this pressing moral emergency?"

Because I can't personally effect the large scale redistribution that is needed. So instead, I donate a % of my income voluntarily to charity (along with a % of my time) and support political parties that want to effect redistribution.

However, if I were the alpha rich, and a philanthropist, I STILL couldn't effect redistribution of the type I am discussing. The way I donated my money, the causes I chose to support, would be personal to me and my values. That's totally different from having a state-driven form of redistribution that is in line with democratically agreed goals. For example, I hate football so I wouldn't want to fund grassroots football and it would be in my power to ensure that none of my money went there. However, other people love football and might want those facilities. Replace football with abortion or any other contentious issue and you can see the issue even more clearly.