Tuesday, 5 February 2013
Equal Marriage #EqualMarriage
When I first heard about equal marriage I was against. Why should a religious group be forced to go against their faith and marry someone if they are simply flowing the doctrine of their faith.
I also though it was a big fuss about nothing. Flamboyant homosexuals making a stir so they can have a something they call a proper wedding. If the religions don't want them then why try to be a part of them. Make your own better religion. One that is tolerant and celebrates apologising to your fellow man when you have wronged them rather than a invisible force then carry on as before.
Then I had doubts. We can not allow discrimination in our society. Discrimination is very hard to resolve because the segregation is what causes the discrimination. To my shame there is no-one on my phone who is black and would expect me to make a courtesy call. There is also no-one on the list who is gay.
We do have segregation. Every wedge forms a level of discomfort and we take the easy option when choosing our relationships. We can never allow history and fear of change protect discrimination.
But then would we be discriminating against people with a faith. They were not actively committing an injustice?
Then I read the bill. And please someone correct me if I am wrong. No practitioner is required to carry out the marriage if they do not wish to.
The defences were gone.
Marriage is not longer a religious institution for most of the UK.
It has become a legal term and influences the laws surrounding assets and benefits.
It has a social value. It is still the go-to term for 'Off the market'. A symbol of the ultimate monogamy commitment.
It also has the benefit for carrying a gender reference for each party. As I found out recently and a young man told me about his partner. I asked where she was from, he said "Him" I said "Ohh sorry" he said "It's ok".
It was not really ok. We then proceeded to talk too much to compensate for the awkwardness that would have never happened had he just said husband. A potentially genuine dialogue destroyed because I was worried that he though that . . you get the idea?
Will I ever be attracted to a man? No way. The sway and curve of a woman's hips hmm. Everyone who is straight or gay knows that you are just born that way and it makes no sense to me that we are not all bisexual? I guess we are animals after all.
Am I homophobic. Yes, a bit. I have not knowingly conversed with any regularly since my college days but I remember it was nothing then, the idea that they might fancy me is odd. I guess it is the feeling women have around proactive men, but without the justification.
I'm more OverExcitableTeenageAphobic and MPSpeculatorAphobic.
But regarding homosexuals at least and feeling initially different and more calculating when relating to them. I know that it is both morally wrong and literally unfounded.
I do not wrong others so that I can gain or simply feel more comfortable.
It is wrong.
I will not deny them any rights that I might have. And that includes the institution of marriage.
Thursday, 31 January 2013
Live in the UK? Want to have a family? Go for it but only if you are old, have family money or are irresponsible. #RentTrap
About 30 years ago a trend started.
Banks started lending larger income multiples. As they did amount people were able to pay for their properties went up. So property prices went up.
With property prices going up the banks had the confidence to lend higher multiples so property went up more.
You do not have to be clever to buy an asset that is going up in value. You just have to have the money to get started.
The next step it the buy to let market. Re-mortgage a house that has gone up in value and then use that money as deposit on another house.
The above required no education. Just opportunity and inclination. And has produced many millionaires. The risk they took was that the housing market could crash and they would loose everything. If your 40-50 and had some money back when it was a sure thing you were a fool for not doing it.
'Every action has an equal and opposite reaction' by securing a continuous income owning someone else's home, you secure a continuous drain on theirs.
How do you set a rent price?
Anyone in sales knows you set the price according to what the market will pay. With not enough properties available for sale at income multiples which have been at least partially reigned in people have no choice but to pay, in many cases their entire full time take home salary on the rent of their family home. That is at these artificially low interest rates, so to purchase right now introduces a massive risk and needs a large deposit. Do we wait for the crash or pay extortionate rents?
Why didn't property prices come down?
Take into account that many people bought their actual home at these inflated rates and were perhaps paying interest only, and add that the banks have less than 10% of the capital they lend out and most is lent against property, If the market were to drop to where it should, it would make sense for the new home-owners to become bankrupt and start fresh. Then the banks would become insolvent. A house price reduction of 20% would trigger an historic economic event in the UK. One we would ALL feel, unlike the 2008 version.
How do young couples without family money get out of the #RentTrap?
Couples on average - 50k incomes trying not to be a burden.
If they are able to get the deposit and multiples together when they both work 40 hour weeks, praying that interest rates do not go up.
While getting a roof over their head is phase 1 of the path of life they now do not have the spare £1000 / month for childcare and can not afford to take maternity past 3 months let let alone move into a property with a another box room. At 35 they bite the bullet and try for a baby anyway unless there is an inheritance
Family money
Varying levels of help but a 30% deposit without interest fixes a lot of problems.
Couples on low - average incomes
The sums will never add up. If they do not want to share a room in a shared house then they will have a better quality of life with children on the scene. Healthier to have them young anyway. Have a family on benefits and then have the right to buy your council house at 25% of value when the kids grow up. #RentTrap is the responsible option, but why be responsible when people are voting for those who profit from your societies injustice?
Can't we cut out the middle man. Self build?
My in-laws were once invited to purchase plots for a new community. They then commissioned the builders and build a home according to certain specifications.
Our new build development market is all tied up.
In the UK land with planning permission is costs 10x or more what is is costs without, and even that is more than land is worth as going concern, the value is there just in case it gets planning permission. Just keep applying.
So either you speculatively purchase a small holding you can not live on, so you have to have wealth already, or you are still going to be paying over the odds.
Even then in the UK we like to have large development companies building 100s of houses. The reason is it simplifies the infrastructure part of the equation Who pays for the new schools and bridges.
The developers mission is to make as much money for themselves as possible. And I do not blame them for that. They are a business after all. They also have the wealth to make the development happen. Taking the council's to appeal or having the time to maintain a good relations, or fill the council with your brethren.
So property prices are artificially inflated because of landlords, rents are high because shelter is a necessity. Developers and land speculators can realise obscene profits on land value changes because of the market price to build cost ratio to they agressivly purchase any bit of land they can, run it down and apply for planning permission while lobbying government. These costs and their excessive profit saddles another generation with additional mortgage debt which, over 30 years of interest or rent, will be more like triple that figure not being disposable income, retirement float or first step for their grand kids. What is the solution?
Make sure surplus developer profits go into affordable housing.
I was at a council meeting last night where the council told me that they negotiated the terms of the planning permission with a large developer to meet their infrastructure needs and wants.
They did not look at the profitability of the scheme at all.
They do these days include 'affordable housing'. This can can take takes several routes for the developer but in this case was for sale to the council's representative at 60% of the sale value which is widely accepted to represent cost.
For a development of this size the on green field the amount of affordable housing would be 40%. Because the developer is being called a strategic partner this is 35%. And for reasons unknown they were allowed to negotiate a special deal to make this 27% with another 8% being built off site. When where? Surely that would have it's own AH quota too.
I do not have all the numbers to make sure that the developers are likely to make a healthy 10-20% profit at best and use the surplus to fund affordable housing. But it would appear the council do not either. According to my sums if there were 50% affordable housing the development would still be a go.
I think developers are having a tougher time of it, but they did grow fat having an easy time of it. The council who represent the community give the planning permission and support the hyper indebted families. Either strike a competitive deal or say no. And if we have to build houses because of government policy then compulsory purchase the farms. Grant yourself planning permission and sell the plots to developers at market value. Much simpler. The sales money going to infrastructure and affordable homes.
Affordable housing is not fair. Free ride for the lazy what about me, I paid for my house.
No it is not fair as it is. But it can be.
We want professional people in their mid 20's without family money to have a couple of children if they want to. Lets make affordable housing assist young families cash flow at this point. Not a gift. Well a little one.
Lets put the affordable homes value in an asset pool. It's purpose to encourage responsible families facing the impossible to stay responsible.
The council can sell some of their affordable homes at full price to purchase not only other properties to help distribute people who need affordable homes, they can use the money purchase stakes in properties that young couples expecting a baby currently own. The young couples will benefit from a very low interest rate on that stake that the community still have an asset that may, hopefully not for 15 years, appreciate.
This should be means tested and the offer extended to a family home up to 3 bedrooms the family wishes to purchase then, once the second child is in primary school and the young family has been supported in it's desire to have two children but should now be able to supplement it's income by at least £400 / month the facility can be passed on to others.
Now if we had a nationalised bank this would be a lot easier. We guarantee against our own part owned properties.
At the same time private home owners sell the family home with the memories etc and downscale into a property that meets their needs often to free up cash, we have to expect the same of those we are supporting, but not the cash.
Ideally everyone would have some cash from downscaling. With a bigger affordable homes scheme using means tested part ownership there would be lots more people taking pride in an appreciating asset.
If I were a wealthy land owner I would not be saying this.
I'd like to think I would. I say this because I actually speak to people on middle incomes about their finances. I did have some family money. I do not think I could be where I am today without it
This would be fine were there no hardship caused by property wealth. It has been allowed to go too far. Average earners living in the UK, born since 1989 trying to stay near their family and friends have no hope.
Opportunists who had a spare £50k in 1998 need do nothing to earn more than any nurse or teacher.
Do not get me wrong. If I had a spare £1m I would be buying farm land on the outskirts of an expanding town or flats in one getting a new rail link with a view to renting them out indefinitely Packaged in an offshore trust so that my children will not incur inheritance tax. It is a easy way to stay rich. In fact it is the only guaranteed way.
But since each one of my £1m will cause 6 families to struggle I would also campaign for and vote for these revenues to be taxed aggressively and tenants to have the '#RightToBuyPrivate'
Right to Buy Private would be where by after two years the tenant has the right to purchase the property at the midway value between the value when they moved in and the value now. Any fun and games the landlords use to avoid / manipulate it should be quashed.
This should be the equation we use for the Right to Buy council houses too. It's simply not a good way to run a society with a vested interest to be irresponsible.
The cost of shelter in the UK has become a private blackmail by deed. Caused not by cruel individuals but by market forces. It is the role of government to resolve this with legislation.
With the above in place my £1m might not be best placed in speculative land or homes near a new school or railway. They would stand a comparable chance of growing if invested in a business servicing people who confidence of a nest egg, disposable incomes, and the time to enjoy it offline. They might grow if I provided a service, making a modest profit while getting 4 year tenants on the housing ladder, rather than being my serfs for life.
Will this make the general uk work force work less hard. Possibly. With the threat of homelessness attached to a shorter working week needed to pay for necessities. But energy is going to have to cost more, so we need the slack.
The Camerons of this world see only busy ants who would be unhappy or mischievous if they we do not have a rod up their back. Are they mistaken?
Improved quality of life should be the end goal.
'Quality Of Life' is a balance. It includes work, play, family and a good dose of bugger all.
The GDP speculative banking land renting economy comes at the expense of Quality of Life, the most important metric there is.
Most MP's are Landlords. They earn more than most without doing ANY work. Be a SMART-voter.org and ignore their lies.
Banks started lending larger income multiples. As they did amount people were able to pay for their properties went up. So property prices went up.
With property prices going up the banks had the confidence to lend higher multiples so property went up more.
You do not have to be clever to buy an asset that is going up in value. You just have to have the money to get started.
The next step it the buy to let market. Re-mortgage a house that has gone up in value and then use that money as deposit on another house.
The above required no education. Just opportunity and inclination. And has produced many millionaires. The risk they took was that the housing market could crash and they would loose everything. If your 40-50 and had some money back when it was a sure thing you were a fool for not doing it.
'Every action has an equal and opposite reaction' by securing a continuous income owning someone else's home, you secure a continuous drain on theirs.
How do you set a rent price?
Anyone in sales knows you set the price according to what the market will pay. With not enough properties available for sale at income multiples which have been at least partially reigned in people have no choice but to pay, in many cases their entire full time take home salary on the rent of their family home. That is at these artificially low interest rates, so to purchase right now introduces a massive risk and needs a large deposit. Do we wait for the crash or pay extortionate rents?
Why didn't property prices come down?
Take into account that many people bought their actual home at these inflated rates and were perhaps paying interest only, and add that the banks have less than 10% of the capital they lend out and most is lent against property, If the market were to drop to where it should, it would make sense for the new home-owners to become bankrupt and start fresh. Then the banks would become insolvent. A house price reduction of 20% would trigger an historic economic event in the UK. One we would ALL feel, unlike the 2008 version.
How do young couples without family money get out of the #RentTrap?
Couples on average - 50k incomes trying not to be a burden.
If they are able to get the deposit and multiples together when they both work 40 hour weeks, praying that interest rates do not go up.
While getting a roof over their head is phase 1 of the path of life they now do not have the spare £1000 / month for childcare and can not afford to take maternity past 3 months let let alone move into a property with a another box room. At 35 they bite the bullet and try for a baby anyway unless there is an inheritance
Family money
Varying levels of help but a 30% deposit without interest fixes a lot of problems.
Couples on low - average incomes
The sums will never add up. If they do not want to share a room in a shared house then they will have a better quality of life with children on the scene. Healthier to have them young anyway. Have a family on benefits and then have the right to buy your council house at 25% of value when the kids grow up. #RentTrap is the responsible option, but why be responsible when people are voting for those who profit from your societies injustice?
Can't we cut out the middle man. Self build?
My in-laws were once invited to purchase plots for a new community. They then commissioned the builders and build a home according to certain specifications.
Our new build development market is all tied up.
In the UK land with planning permission is costs 10x or more what is is costs without, and even that is more than land is worth as going concern, the value is there just in case it gets planning permission. Just keep applying.
So either you speculatively purchase a small holding you can not live on, so you have to have wealth already, or you are still going to be paying over the odds.
Even then in the UK we like to have large development companies building 100s of houses. The reason is it simplifies the infrastructure part of the equation Who pays for the new schools and bridges.
The developers mission is to make as much money for themselves as possible. And I do not blame them for that. They are a business after all. They also have the wealth to make the development happen. Taking the council's to appeal or having the time to maintain a good relations, or fill the council with your brethren.
So property prices are artificially inflated because of landlords, rents are high because shelter is a necessity. Developers and land speculators can realise obscene profits on land value changes because of the market price to build cost ratio to they agressivly purchase any bit of land they can, run it down and apply for planning permission while lobbying government. These costs and their excessive profit saddles another generation with additional mortgage debt which, over 30 years of interest or rent, will be more like triple that figure not being disposable income, retirement float or first step for their grand kids. What is the solution?
Make sure surplus developer profits go into affordable housing.
I was at a council meeting last night where the council told me that they negotiated the terms of the planning permission with a large developer to meet their infrastructure needs and wants.
They did not look at the profitability of the scheme at all.
They do these days include 'affordable housing'. This can can take takes several routes for the developer but in this case was for sale to the council's representative at 60% of the sale value which is widely accepted to represent cost.
For a development of this size the on green field the amount of affordable housing would be 40%. Because the developer is being called a strategic partner this is 35%. And for reasons unknown they were allowed to negotiate a special deal to make this 27% with another 8% being built off site. When where? Surely that would have it's own AH quota too.
I do not have all the numbers to make sure that the developers are likely to make a healthy 10-20% profit at best and use the surplus to fund affordable housing. But it would appear the council do not either. According to my sums if there were 50% affordable housing the development would still be a go.
I think developers are having a tougher time of it, but they did grow fat having an easy time of it. The council who represent the community give the planning permission and support the hyper indebted families. Either strike a competitive deal or say no. And if we have to build houses because of government policy then compulsory purchase the farms. Grant yourself planning permission and sell the plots to developers at market value. Much simpler. The sales money going to infrastructure and affordable homes.
Affordable housing is not fair. Free ride for the lazy what about me, I paid for my house.
No it is not fair as it is. But it can be.
We want professional people in their mid 20's without family money to have a couple of children if they want to. Lets make affordable housing assist young families cash flow at this point. Not a gift. Well a little one.
Lets put the affordable homes value in an asset pool. It's purpose to encourage responsible families facing the impossible to stay responsible.
The council can sell some of their affordable homes at full price to purchase not only other properties to help distribute people who need affordable homes, they can use the money purchase stakes in properties that young couples expecting a baby currently own. The young couples will benefit from a very low interest rate on that stake that the community still have an asset that may, hopefully not for 15 years, appreciate.
This should be means tested and the offer extended to a family home up to 3 bedrooms the family wishes to purchase then, once the second child is in primary school and the young family has been supported in it's desire to have two children but should now be able to supplement it's income by at least £400 / month the facility can be passed on to others.
Now if we had a nationalised bank this would be a lot easier. We guarantee against our own part owned properties.
At the same time private home owners sell the family home with the memories etc and downscale into a property that meets their needs often to free up cash, we have to expect the same of those we are supporting, but not the cash.
Ideally everyone would have some cash from downscaling. With a bigger affordable homes scheme using means tested part ownership there would be lots more people taking pride in an appreciating asset.
If I were a wealthy land owner I would not be saying this.
I'd like to think I would. I say this because I actually speak to people on middle incomes about their finances. I did have some family money. I do not think I could be where I am today without it
This would be fine were there no hardship caused by property wealth. It has been allowed to go too far. Average earners living in the UK, born since 1989 trying to stay near their family and friends have no hope.
Opportunists who had a spare £50k in 1998 need do nothing to earn more than any nurse or teacher.
Do not get me wrong. If I had a spare £1m I would be buying farm land on the outskirts of an expanding town or flats in one getting a new rail link with a view to renting them out indefinitely Packaged in an offshore trust so that my children will not incur inheritance tax. It is a easy way to stay rich. In fact it is the only guaranteed way.
But since each one of my £1m will cause 6 families to struggle I would also campaign for and vote for these revenues to be taxed aggressively and tenants to have the '#RightToBuyPrivate'
Right to Buy Private would be where by after two years the tenant has the right to purchase the property at the midway value between the value when they moved in and the value now. Any fun and games the landlords use to avoid / manipulate it should be quashed.
This should be the equation we use for the Right to Buy council houses too. It's simply not a good way to run a society with a vested interest to be irresponsible.
The cost of shelter in the UK has become a private blackmail by deed. Caused not by cruel individuals but by market forces. It is the role of government to resolve this with legislation.
With the above in place my £1m might not be best placed in speculative land or homes near a new school or railway. They would stand a comparable chance of growing if invested in a business servicing people who confidence of a nest egg, disposable incomes, and the time to enjoy it offline. They might grow if I provided a service, making a modest profit while getting 4 year tenants on the housing ladder, rather than being my serfs for life.
Will this make the general uk work force work less hard. Possibly. With the threat of homelessness attached to a shorter working week needed to pay for necessities. But energy is going to have to cost more, so we need the slack.
The Camerons of this world see only busy ants who would be unhappy or mischievous if they we do not have a rod up their back. Are they mistaken?
Improved quality of life should be the end goal.
'Quality Of Life' is a balance. It includes work, play, family and a good dose of bugger all.
The GDP speculative banking land renting economy comes at the expense of Quality of Life, the most important metric there is.
Most MP's are Landlords. They earn more than most without doing ANY work. Be a SMART-voter.org and ignore their lies.
Friday, 11 January 2013
Why MPs are paid so little and why something must change
An MP was never supposed to be a full time role. They are supposed to be a trusted working member of a local community who have offered themselves up for the privilege of helping those around them not someone who lives there as part of a political strategy.
Like with the hours families work in the economy. The role of an MP has raced to the bottom.
If a family is willing to work 100 hours / week for a modest lifestyle and it is allowed to then that is what low earners will have to do to compete.
If a political candidate is able to work 40 MP hours / week and has financial backing then that is what all political candidates must do to compete.
This excludes them from being what they are supposed to be, in touch members of the local community.
It also requires that they have a conflict of interest. A duty of care to the people who financed them or the other profit making organisations they are a part of.
So it is time to accept that the role of an MP has been allowed to change and as we learn from our mistakes we must change the game rules.
There seems to be only 3 options.
1. Pay rise so that an MP is a well paid full time, time tracked executive job. Lets match it to a head teacher. £140k for example. But with allowances no different than a school head teacher. No second home, modest accommodation provided. They can pay their own travel in and out of London and visit less frequently seeking council from their constituents.The further from London you are the more £140k means so it ballences out.
I'd like to see more MPs voting from home with their constituents giving them last minute encouragement not a whip. Public speaking opportunities should be part of their ideology and freely given, not something for sale commanding figures that could justify loyalty in parliament. Non-executive positions and directorships are not only areas of conflict but provide unfair competitive advantage as they have access to MP sentiment and were serving us when they got it.
2. Regulations are put in place so that money factors little in political success.
Some ideas. Limit political campaigning to state funded circulations and events that give each candidate equal exposure. No door stepping or personal fliers.
3. Random. Yes a jury of 260 people deliberating. Can we pass laws without parties? Much easier to get a majority of 260 people to eventually agree democratically on one colour than three people who are disagreeing on principle.
Will there be some people obviously not suited to the roll? Yes. But they will do less harm than a clever crony.
My personal preference is in order is 321. But it can not continue like this.
If you are fed up of signing petitions against the latest evils pushed through by corporate interests in politics put in your calendar 28th August to visit www.GoodEgg.org.uk.
Like with the hours families work in the economy. The role of an MP has raced to the bottom.
If a family is willing to work 100 hours / week for a modest lifestyle and it is allowed to then that is what low earners will have to do to compete.
If a political candidate is able to work 40 MP hours / week and has financial backing then that is what all political candidates must do to compete.
This excludes them from being what they are supposed to be, in touch members of the local community.
It also requires that they have a conflict of interest. A duty of care to the people who financed them or the other profit making organisations they are a part of.
So it is time to accept that the role of an MP has been allowed to change and as we learn from our mistakes we must change the game rules.
There seems to be only 3 options.
1. Pay rise so that an MP is a well paid full time, time tracked executive job. Lets match it to a head teacher. £140k for example. But with allowances no different than a school head teacher. No second home, modest accommodation provided. They can pay their own travel in and out of London and visit less frequently seeking council from their constituents.The further from London you are the more £140k means so it ballences out.
I'd like to see more MPs voting from home with their constituents giving them last minute encouragement not a whip. Public speaking opportunities should be part of their ideology and freely given, not something for sale commanding figures that could justify loyalty in parliament. Non-executive positions and directorships are not only areas of conflict but provide unfair competitive advantage as they have access to MP sentiment and were serving us when they got it.
2. Regulations are put in place so that money factors little in political success.
Some ideas. Limit political campaigning to state funded circulations and events that give each candidate equal exposure. No door stepping or personal fliers.
3. Random. Yes a jury of 260 people deliberating. Can we pass laws without parties? Much easier to get a majority of 260 people to eventually agree democratically on one colour than three people who are disagreeing on principle.
Will there be some people obviously not suited to the roll? Yes. But they will do less harm than a clever crony.
My personal preference is in order is 321. But it can not continue like this.
If you are fed up of signing petitions against the latest evils pushed through by corporate interests in politics put in your calendar 28th August to visit www.GoodEgg.org.uk.
Friday, 9 November 2012
GDP is only useful when . .
GDP measures how many 'units' one years value is divided into. Nothing more.
We calculate GDP by adding the market value of all officially recognized final goods and services.
In reality, if we are going to try and get some worth while measurement, one that relates just a little to how much money, not value, the mean average person in the country gets out of what they do then we need do this sum.
% GDP change - % population change - inflation.
So lets put some optimistic pre-2008 figures in
(GDP growth 1%) - (Population growth 0.6%) - (Inflation 2%)
That's -1.6% that we get out of what we do (if we count tax advice as getting) hardly progress is it.
The current situation is more like
(GDP growth 0.7%) - (Population growth 0.7%) - (Inflation 2.5%)
So -2.5% per year.
This figure is historically negative so ruling parties ignore it.
But even GDP taking into account inflation and population is is just a load of old twaddle unless we include value.
Much if what is included in GDP is of no value.
Lets say someone like you buys a bomb and blows up your house.
The bomb is manufactured, your house is rebuilt. The legal work, admin, tax calculations. It all had no value. There is plenty of GDP.
What else has no or negative value in our economy?
The PPI insurance fiasco. Marketing it, sending out letters and training staff to sell it. FSA decides it's a bit mean five years too late. Companies buy tele sales data and cold call people who may have been miss sold PPI in a bid to win the legal fees. All these people needed a place to do their work, transportation, electricity, computers etc. No value
Land Lord. If someone owns homes they do not need then the need for homes goes up, making them less affordable. Other must pay inflated property prices plus bank interest for the owners unwanted service. The landlords pointless annoying role has to check the condition of the property because they still own it and those occupying therefore have no personal insensitive to maintain it. The tenant never builds a nest egg the landlord uses it to grow the problem. GDP, negative value.
Speculative land owner. If someone buys land with the view to gaining planning permission and selling it on or holding land it in an area where the land value is likely to increase in value then their profit is simply debt passed onto new home owners house prices GDP or land owners. No Value. Since the property is bought on debt we then have additional unwanted interest payments and other 'services'.
Land change of use. The UK is a net importer of food. with an assumed 1.2 acres of farm land needed per person the UK's 45 million acres is not going to cut it. this means that the GDP we gain now from changing farm land into property has a long lasting negative effect. Effectively taking on a lifetime of resource import debt for future generations. High GDP, off the books real monetary local debt.
All resource consumption and damage caused by mining.
If the over all effect of mining a reusable resource is unsustainable damage to the environment then that is again a debt that does not show up in the deficit.
If the resource is consumable then again we are literally spending reserves. The off the books deficit is huge.
Many bank activities. Hedging, credit default swaps, encouraging, 'Buy Now Pay Twice Later' on people who will be poorer in the long run. No value. Factor in fractional reserve banking and that all wealth must reside somewhere and it is clear that the systems we have in place have allowed market forces to turn ursery into the backbone of economies who leaders profess to believe in god.
And while all this false GDP is being created we are running a deficit. There should be no deficit. On and off the books combined. We should aim for a national profit just like the companies who's representatives run the government.
Greater value would be created if people did not undertake these GDP activities and left the workforce.
They would not have been doing something they hate 40 hours / week. Being unhappy should be the main negative value.
Where would they live, how would they eat without money?
This is the crazy thing. If they had done nothing of value and yet the value resources were available in that economic model then where did the resources go?
Those 'value' resources were still produced by value creators.
The GDP figure is simply the calculation for distribution of available value. The higher the figure, the less each unit of value is worth in money (inflation).
Many hopeless unfortunates correctly choose to give up on working as part of the system. For them the sums will now never add up. Even if they give 100%, which is no way to live and should not be necessary. They raise a family with their hand out and a swelling bitterness at the injustice of it all. And the cycle continues.
A GDP model in the absence of strict banking rules results in debt.
A GDP model in the absence of wealth distribution rules results in poverty for most.
A GDP model in the absence of sustainability rules results in accelerated consumption.
A GDP model in the absence of enforced political integrity result in lax rules.
The above result in hardship to breaking point then painful revolution.
How can we fix this?
Step 1 is to get vested interests out of politics. Be part of a simple and painless revolution on the 28th of August visit www.goodegg.org.uk. Put it in your calander now.
An MP should be treated like any other full time company director with incentives for reaching their goals. The question is what should those goals be?
Increase GDP? No!
Here are some ideas.
Click here to read a comic about two kids, an island and GDP.
Great explanation of GDP measurement.
I'd love to see a real GDP survey response from a bank. Remember #Libor. I doubt 'what counts' is clear cut and there is big money to be made in the markets.
Here is one way we can start taming the life consuming beast that is GDP.
We calculate GDP by adding the market value of all officially recognized final goods and services.
In reality, if we are going to try and get some worth while measurement, one that relates just a little to how much money, not value, the mean average person in the country gets out of what they do then we need do this sum.
% GDP change - % population change - inflation.
So lets put some optimistic pre-2008 figures in
(GDP growth 1%) - (Population growth 0.6%) - (Inflation 2%)
That's -1.6% that we get out of what we do (if we count tax advice as getting) hardly progress is it.
The current situation is more like
(GDP growth 0.7%) - (Population growth 0.7%) - (Inflation 2.5%)
So -2.5% per year.
This figure is historically negative so ruling parties ignore it.
But even GDP taking into account inflation and population is is just a load of old twaddle unless we include value.
Much if what is included in GDP is of no value.
Lets say someone like you buys a bomb and blows up your house.
The bomb is manufactured, your house is rebuilt. The legal work, admin, tax calculations. It all had no value. There is plenty of GDP.
What else has no or negative value in our economy?
The PPI insurance fiasco. Marketing it, sending out letters and training staff to sell it. FSA decides it's a bit mean five years too late. Companies buy tele sales data and cold call people who may have been miss sold PPI in a bid to win the legal fees. All these people needed a place to do their work, transportation, electricity, computers etc. No value
Land Lord. If someone owns homes they do not need then the need for homes goes up, making them less affordable. Other must pay inflated property prices plus bank interest for the owners unwanted service. The landlords pointless annoying role has to check the condition of the property because they still own it and those occupying therefore have no personal insensitive to maintain it. The tenant never builds a nest egg the landlord uses it to grow the problem. GDP, negative value.
Speculative land owner. If someone buys land with the view to gaining planning permission and selling it on or holding land it in an area where the land value is likely to increase in value then their profit is simply debt passed onto new home owners house prices GDP or land owners. No Value. Since the property is bought on debt we then have additional unwanted interest payments and other 'services'.
Land change of use. The UK is a net importer of food. with an assumed 1.2 acres of farm land needed per person the UK's 45 million acres is not going to cut it. this means that the GDP we gain now from changing farm land into property has a long lasting negative effect. Effectively taking on a lifetime of resource import debt for future generations. High GDP, off the books real monetary local debt.
All resource consumption and damage caused by mining.
If the over all effect of mining a reusable resource is unsustainable damage to the environment then that is again a debt that does not show up in the deficit.
If the resource is consumable then again we are literally spending reserves. The off the books deficit is huge.
Many bank activities. Hedging, credit default swaps, encouraging, 'Buy Now Pay Twice Later' on people who will be poorer in the long run. No value. Factor in fractional reserve banking and that all wealth must reside somewhere and it is clear that the systems we have in place have allowed market forces to turn ursery into the backbone of economies who leaders profess to believe in god.
And while all this false GDP is being created we are running a deficit. There should be no deficit. On and off the books combined. We should aim for a national profit just like the companies who's representatives run the government.
Greater value would be created if people did not undertake these GDP activities and left the workforce.
With the gift of time those people may have become active members of the 'Big Society'. Bringing happiness and taking the strain from state resources. This has 'Value'.
They may have restored items to a greater value and not have traveled so far twice a day in the rush. Saving on consumption.
They would have cared for their home during the day and perhaps shared a mutual appreciation in the evening with their wife or husband.
They would not have been doing something they hate 40 hours / week. Being unhappy should be the main negative value.
Where would they live, how would they eat without money?
This is the crazy thing. If they had done nothing of value and yet the value resources were available in that economic model then where did the resources go?
Those 'value' resources were still produced by value creators.
The GDP figure is simply the calculation for distribution of available value. The higher the figure, the less each unit of value is worth in money (inflation).
Many hopeless unfortunates correctly choose to give up on working as part of the system. For them the sums will now never add up. Even if they give 100%, which is no way to live and should not be necessary. They raise a family with their hand out and a swelling bitterness at the injustice of it all. And the cycle continues.
A GDP model in the absence of strict banking rules results in debt.
A GDP model in the absence of wealth distribution rules results in poverty for most.
A GDP model in the absence of sustainability rules results in accelerated consumption.
A GDP model in the absence of enforced political integrity result in lax rules.
The above result in hardship to breaking point then painful revolution.
How can we fix this?
Step 1 is to get vested interests out of politics. Be part of a simple and painless revolution on the 28th of August visit www.goodegg.org.uk. Put it in your calander now.
An MP should be treated like any other full time company director with incentives for reaching their goals. The question is what should those goals be?
Increase GDP? No!
Here are some ideas.
- Reliable prompt health care.
- Breathing space.
- Comfort and security.
- Sustainability.
- The number of hours per day the lowest paid workers must work per week to meet their needs, insure against illness and contribute toward society.
Click here to read a comic about two kids, an island and GDP.
Great explanation of GDP measurement.
I'd love to see a real GDP survey response from a bank. Remember #Libor. I doubt 'what counts' is clear cut and there is big money to be made in the markets.
Here is one way we can start taming the life consuming beast that is GDP.
Building houses will not make them more affordable . . yet.
"Silly Kaz. It's supply and demand. You make more to meet demand and then prices some down. Economics 101".
This is true. But lets look back at what caused the increase in house price rises. Was it the demand for a home . . or the demand for an investment?
In the mid 90's property started to sky-rocket. But something had happened. Banks started lending more. Then an investment phenomenon took place. What was once reserved for the social elite became a game all would play. If you buy a house and rent it out you can re-mortgage in two years and buy another one using the increase in value as a deposit, and rent that out . . and so on and so on.
This lasted nearly just over years.
In the rush anyone looking to purchase or upgrade their property would stretch as far as they could go, why not, the more they borrowed the more they would profit from percentile property value increases.
Some of us re-mortgaged out some money for improvements a few years later? I paid the lion share of my wedding and got some double glazing. Property inflation became an income.
2008 comes and where is the big crash with properties for perhaps 15% below their peak, still massively over valued in relation to salaries, and build costs, but any lower and the banks safe deposit of housing will be too small. Having lent out 10 x real money in circulation (see fractional reserve banking) there was simply not enough money in actual existence to cope with any shrinkage.
So house prices will be kept high.
Exportable labor salaries will shrink towards those of the most down trodden globally.
The rich and developers will acquire land and do whatever it takes to change its usage rights to as many residential units as possible, each and every unit permit being worth £100k+.
Houses are not going to get cheaper, and the way planning works means a few already rich investors will pocket the overspend of new home owners.
The simple way of eliminating spin and corruption led development is for a council to choose strategic locations and compulsory purchase them for what they are worth without planning permission. Then invite developers to bid for the public consultation and and design phase.
Then invite businesses to bid for various aspect of the build.
The profit to the councils will be smaller than the efficiency of the developer, but efficiency and 1 person getting rich is not a good thing.
The council should get a bit more money towards infrastructure and smaller local companies will be able to get in on the act in a sustainable manner.
Building houses will not make them cheaper, with this planning permission system the money just makes the rich richer and encourages corruption.
This is true. But lets look back at what caused the increase in house price rises. Was it the demand for a home . . or the demand for an investment?
In the mid 90's property started to sky-rocket. But something had happened. Banks started lending more. Then an investment phenomenon took place. What was once reserved for the social elite became a game all would play. If you buy a house and rent it out you can re-mortgage in two years and buy another one using the increase in value as a deposit, and rent that out . . and so on and so on.
This lasted nearly just over years.
In the rush anyone looking to purchase or upgrade their property would stretch as far as they could go, why not, the more they borrowed the more they would profit from percentile property value increases.
Some of us re-mortgaged out some money for improvements a few years later? I paid the lion share of my wedding and got some double glazing. Property inflation became an income.
2008 comes and where is the big crash with properties for perhaps 15% below their peak, still massively over valued in relation to salaries, and build costs, but any lower and the banks safe deposit of housing will be too small. Having lent out 10 x real money in circulation (see fractional reserve banking) there was simply not enough money in actual existence to cope with any shrinkage.
So house prices will be kept high.
Exportable labor salaries will shrink towards those of the most down trodden globally.
The rich and developers will acquire land and do whatever it takes to change its usage rights to as many residential units as possible, each and every unit permit being worth £100k+.
Houses are not going to get cheaper, and the way planning works means a few already rich investors will pocket the overspend of new home owners.
The simple way of eliminating spin and corruption led development is for a council to choose strategic locations and compulsory purchase them for what they are worth without planning permission. Then invite developers to bid for the public consultation and and design phase.
Then invite businesses to bid for various aspect of the build.
The profit to the councils will be smaller than the efficiency of the developer, but efficiency and 1 person getting rich is not a good thing.
The council should get a bit more money towards infrastructure and smaller local companies will be able to get in on the act in a sustainable manner.
Building houses will not make them cheaper, with this planning permission system the money just makes the rich richer and encourages corruption.
Land tax - wealth wax. The for, the against and the for again
I've been arguing for a wealth tax since I first got politically active.
The argument comes down to economics and ethics including from from the perspective or the landowner.
Economics is easy.
Land value tax at first seems complicated regarding farmers etc. The lets say 1% cost will be passed on. I think, if the the money finds it's way to those who can not afford then that is fine and it can.
The cost will also be passed on by private landlords. That is why we need the right2buy extended to the private sector. If you have rented a house, field, office for two years and the landlord is taking too much cream whilst providing only a unnecessary middle man between you and the bank then ...
1. Our economy can not afford the inefficiency. We need less people being paid well for doing nothing of value.
2. The non landlord majority should not tolerate this method of profiteering or perpetual hereditary land titles.
The argument against
My land wealth hoarding gambling friends, who are nice caring people by the way, simply do not comprehend the hardship 'start from scratch'ers are facing. They are also not willing to accept how significantly that it ties in with their favourite game 'how much will I pass on when I die'.
Anyway. The argument against, especially from people who started their own successful wealth creating business before moving into asset retention and inheritance strategy is...
"Why should I have to pay more, I already pay more on income tax, it's mine."
The answer
Firstly. I personally do not think you should be expected to pay more income tax as a percentage, (And you don't anyway do you. You sneaky so and so ;)). I'm happy for us to make loads of money getting people working earning what they need in less than 40 hours / week, or create solutions so people need work less to do their resulting fair share.
Regarding taxing your estate. Why don't all the people who are paying too much in mortgage debt or rent just not do it just go and live on your land or take your home by force?
The reason is that we have a legal ownership system and it is enforced.
Our wealth in this country is protected by the men and women of the armed forces and police most of whom are all the poorer for protecting your estate.
As the cycle continues our grandchildren will hold theirs to the same random, legally devoid of tax in trusts be them off shore or here.
The cost to quality of life, for both.
Their children will miss out on the best things in life which are free, working too many hours trying to fund themselves and our estate growth + what we collectively squander.
Our grandchildren will miss out on having made something of themselves if they survive all the sex and drugs.
So changing the ownership system to tax hoarded wealth, especially in the form of rental properties and rented farm land is not only fairer to those who defend it for us, fairer on the majority for whom our MPs who in effect are Trustees supposed make the law work in benefit of, but on the decedents of the fortunate who will actually build character having a little hardship, and empathy with the majority who are actually their equals.
I welcome innovation and commerce. The lord of the land is not an innovation. It is old custom come back to haunt us.
That is why, as a landlord myself, and someone who will continue to attempt to purchase land and place in trust for my beneficiaries so long as it is the easiest way to secure wealth, I will back any motion to give the right to tenants to purchase their rented properties / land at the mid value between when the moved in and the current market value. #Right2BuyPrivate
On a separate note, it would also be a great moment to scrap inheritance tax. The wealth will be taxed over time in manageable pieces instead. Few wealthy land / business owners pay it anyway causing more wasteful work for tax advisers like John Redwood MP. Those maintaining strategies to help us avoiding paying tax. He should instead spend time actually wealth creating, trying to improve the 'quality of life' index if he is so clever. And if not then there is always the 'Big society'.
If you are fed up of signing petitions against the latest evils pushed through by corporate interests in politics visit www.smart-voter.org
The argument comes down to economics and ethics including from from the perspective or the landowner.
Economics is easy.
Land value tax at first seems complicated regarding farmers etc. The lets say 1% cost will be passed on. I think, if the the money finds it's way to those who can not afford then that is fine and it can.
The cost will also be passed on by private landlords. That is why we need the right2buy extended to the private sector. If you have rented a house, field, office for two years and the landlord is taking too much cream whilst providing only a unnecessary middle man between you and the bank then ...
1. Our economy can not afford the inefficiency. We need less people being paid well for doing nothing of value.
2. The non landlord majority should not tolerate this method of profiteering or perpetual hereditary land titles.
The argument against
My land wealth hoarding gambling friends, who are nice caring people by the way, simply do not comprehend the hardship 'start from scratch'ers are facing. They are also not willing to accept how significantly that it ties in with their favourite game 'how much will I pass on when I die'.
Anyway. The argument against, especially from people who started their own successful wealth creating business before moving into asset retention and inheritance strategy is...
"Why should I have to pay more, I already pay more on income tax, it's mine."
The answer
Firstly. I personally do not think you should be expected to pay more income tax as a percentage, (And you don't anyway do you. You sneaky so and so ;)). I'm happy for us to make loads of money getting people working earning what they need in less than 40 hours / week, or create solutions so people need work less to do their resulting fair share.
Regarding taxing your estate. Why don't all the people who are paying too much in mortgage debt or rent just not do it just go and live on your land or take your home by force?
The reason is that we have a legal ownership system and it is enforced.
Our wealth in this country is protected by the men and women of the armed forces and police most of whom are all the poorer for protecting your estate.
As the cycle continues our grandchildren will hold theirs to the same random, legally devoid of tax in trusts be them off shore or here.
The cost to quality of life, for both.
Their children will miss out on the best things in life which are free, working too many hours trying to fund themselves and our estate growth + what we collectively squander.
Our grandchildren will miss out on having made something of themselves if they survive all the sex and drugs.
So changing the ownership system to tax hoarded wealth, especially in the form of rental properties and rented farm land is not only fairer to those who defend it for us, fairer on the majority for whom our MPs who in effect are Trustees supposed make the law work in benefit of, but on the decedents of the fortunate who will actually build character having a little hardship, and empathy with the majority who are actually their equals.
I welcome innovation and commerce. The lord of the land is not an innovation. It is old custom come back to haunt us.
That is why, as a landlord myself, and someone who will continue to attempt to purchase land and place in trust for my beneficiaries so long as it is the easiest way to secure wealth, I will back any motion to give the right to tenants to purchase their rented properties / land at the mid value between when the moved in and the current market value. #Right2BuyPrivate
On a separate note, it would also be a great moment to scrap inheritance tax. The wealth will be taxed over time in manageable pieces instead. Few wealthy land / business owners pay it anyway causing more wasteful work for tax advisers like John Redwood MP. Those maintaining strategies to help us avoiding paying tax. He should instead spend time actually wealth creating, trying to improve the 'quality of life' index if he is so clever. And if not then there is always the 'Big society'.
If you are fed up of signing petitions against the latest evils pushed through by corporate interests in politics visit www.smart-voter.org
Saturday, 13 October 2012
New fair tax and benefits system. Looking for ideas. Discussion.
The tax and benefits system is so complicated that we have people who should be doing something of value dedicating their lives to manipulating it.
Could we actually get a decent system down to two pages of A4? A system that motivates and rewards productive work, facilitates a less consumer / debt based economy and renders our highly intelligent time wasters in tax avoidance and gambling redundant so they can become doctors, work in a recycling plant or, if they are so clever, innovate and lead others into private enterprise.
I've got it down to one side of A4. Thoughts greatly received.
-------------------------------------------------------
Flat 30% tax on all incomes (including unclaimed trust growth, capital gains on stocks and shares etc.
Exclusions are Capital gains on your primary residence and share holding in Ltd businesses that are predominately productive (productive definition, most revenue comes from turning physical goods into physical goods of higher physical value.
0.5% wealth tax on all world assets for UK citizens. assets (including trust stakes) over 200,000 x the minimum hourly wage. (about £1m).
1% wealth tax on all UK based assets. Assets (including trust stakes) over 200,000 x the minimum wage (about £1m). (instead of 0.5% for UK citizens)
No individual may transferee internationally more than 10,000 (about £50k) x the minimum hourly wage worth of assets in any given year.
No death duty,
All citizens will have the right to work in the national service should they be unable to find work within the private sector. This will be 30 hours per week and 20 days of holiday. until the age of 65 and 15 hours per week and 60 days of holiday until the age of 75.
National service work will include house building, recycling, food production, defence (home soil only), utilities. These services will be managed by private contracting managers.
All citizens will be provided with health care.
All Citizens will be provided with free childcare and education up until the age of 18.
All national service citizens will be provided with appropriate accommodation up to home suitable for two children.
All citizens over 75 will be provided with suitable accommodation should they so need it.
National service citizens will have a food card, electricity and gas that reflects modest requirements they will also receive 2x minimum day wage / month to use how they see fit.
One parent per national service household is allowed not to work their 30 hours if there is an infant below school age. Once parent with one more children will be expected to work 1 hour after school starts and one hour before school finishes.
Disabled people will have their work suitability assessed and be provided with work that meets their specific needs.
People who must unfortunately leave the private sector after not less than two years of private self sufficiency and own a home may receive monitory value of their national service work for up to one year should they so wish.
---------------------------------------------------------
Could we actually get a decent system down to two pages of A4? A system that motivates and rewards productive work, facilitates a less consumer / debt based economy and renders our highly intelligent time wasters in tax avoidance and gambling redundant so they can become doctors, work in a recycling plant or, if they are so clever, innovate and lead others into private enterprise.
I've got it down to one side of A4. Thoughts greatly received.
-------------------------------------------------------
Flat 30% tax on all incomes (including unclaimed trust growth, capital gains on stocks and shares etc.
Exclusions are Capital gains on your primary residence and share holding in Ltd businesses that are predominately productive (productive definition, most revenue comes from turning physical goods into physical goods of higher physical value.
0.5% wealth tax on all world assets for UK citizens. assets (including trust stakes) over 200,000 x the minimum hourly wage. (about £1m).
1% wealth tax on all UK based assets. Assets (including trust stakes) over 200,000 x the minimum wage (about £1m). (instead of 0.5% for UK citizens)
No individual may transferee internationally more than 10,000 (about £50k) x the minimum hourly wage worth of assets in any given year.
No death duty,
All citizens will have the right to work in the national service should they be unable to find work within the private sector. This will be 30 hours per week and 20 days of holiday. until the age of 65 and 15 hours per week and 60 days of holiday until the age of 75.
National service work will include house building, recycling, food production, defence (home soil only), utilities. These services will be managed by private contracting managers.
All citizens will be provided with health care.
All Citizens will be provided with free childcare and education up until the age of 18.
All national service citizens will be provided with appropriate accommodation up to home suitable for two children.
All citizens over 75 will be provided with suitable accommodation should they so need it.
National service citizens will have a food card, electricity and gas that reflects modest requirements they will also receive 2x minimum day wage / month to use how they see fit.
One parent per national service household is allowed not to work their 30 hours if there is an infant below school age. Once parent with one more children will be expected to work 1 hour after school starts and one hour before school finishes.
Disabled people will have their work suitability assessed and be provided with work that meets their specific needs.
People who must unfortunately leave the private sector after not less than two years of private self sufficiency and own a home may receive monitory value of their national service work for up to one year should they so wish.
---------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)