There seems to be some new push on social media where Trump and supporters are spinning the bullshit about the US paying for NATO and carrying Europe.
It’s sort of funny they should be doing this on Independence Day when that really came about because they didn’t want to pay taxes to help cover their defence and the costs of the French Indian War. Maybe MaGAs could try and think about that.
I am very impressed by @interested's attempts to mangle the basic economics of supply and demand.
A land value tax would almost certainly lower rents, because it would discourage properties from being left empty.
O level economics if costs go up the supply curve shifts and prices rise.it’s you that is mangling the basic laws of economics
Shall we ask Claude?
"What would the likely impact on rents in the UK be of the introduction of a land value tax?"
To which Claude responded:
"Short answer: standard economic theory predicts that a well-designed land value tax (LVT) shouldn't raise rents at all, and in fact could push them down slightly.
The core theoretical argument Land differs from produced goods (like buildings) because its supply is fixed — you can't create more of it in response to price signals. Standard tax incidence theory says the burden of a tax falls on the side of the market that's least able to adjust quantity. Since landowners can't reduce the supply of land in response to a tax, they can't pass the cost on to tenants through higher rents. The tax gets "capitalized" into a lower land value instead — the landowner absorbs it, roughly one-for-one, through a drop in what the land is worth. This is different from a tax on buildings or improvements (like most property taxes), where supply can shrink over time (less construction, less maintenance), which does tend to get partly passed through to renters. Why it might even push rents down If an LVT replaces less efficient taxes (like taxes on labor, capital, or construction), it removes the disincentive to build. A tax on land value doesn't penalize you for adding a building — unlike a conventional property tax, which taxes the improvement too. So LVT can encourage more intensive use of land (more housing built on it), which increases housing supply and puts downward pressure on rents over time. There's also an argument that LVT discourages land speculation and "warehousing" of vacant or underused sites, since holding unproductive land becomes costlier — again nudging more land into productive (housing) use."
Now, it could be that Claude is mangling basic economics.
Or it could be that you're simply wrong.
Must admit I am surprised. Still seems counter intuitive to me. Why would all landlords accept lower returns and still stay in the market. After all we have seen them exit the market because of the new regulations.
I guess he does draw a distinction between land and buildings. Clearly rent for flats and homes is a combination of rent for land and rent for buildings. II can see the rent for the land component may not rise but surely if the cost of land goes up the economics mean appetite for letting the building component falls and supply of rental property falls and rents rise. Claude does recognise in his third paragraph that building supply can shrink over time and get reflected in higher rents.
"If he's remembered at all it will be for him deciding that instead of dealing with bad things in the country, he would instead arrest the people who didn't like the bad things that were happening in the country"
Well let's hope Douglas Murray isn't remembered for dross like that.
He has half a point. Certainly among the things that turned people off the Prime Minister was the feeling that justice was rigged against ordinary people – two tier Keir.
I doubt that is what he means though. Although tbf it's such an odd statement that it's hard to know. Being who he is I suspect he's talking about unfair persecution of the far right.
That is a matter of perception. Hurty words or rioting? Protecting communities or attacking incomers? The point is that people came to see the system as rigged against them, hence two tier Keir. Similarly, another thing that put people off the PM was free gear Keir – and a close and legalistic defence that showed no bribery missed the point. Nigel Farage now has the same problem.
But that's not where Murray is coming from. When he talks about 'arresting people who didn't like the bad things happening to the country', we know what he means - and it's not 'ordinary people'. He means people who agitate in the (far right) cause he believes in, either by deed or by (racist and violent and inciting) word.
Re grift, Farage ought to have a massively bigger problem since it's on a massively bigger scale. But let's see. Here's hoping.
I am very impressed by @interested's attempts to mangle the basic economics of supply and demand.
A land value tax would almost certainly lower rents, because it would discourage properties from being left empty.
O level economics if costs go up the supply curve shifts and prices rise.it’s you that is mangling the basic laws of economics
Shall we ask Claude?
"What would the likely impact on rents in the UK be of the introduction of a land value tax?"
To which Claude responded:
"Short answer: standard economic theory predicts that a well-designed land value tax (LVT) shouldn't raise rents at all, and in fact could push them down slightly.
The core theoretical argument Land differs from produced goods (like buildings) because its supply is fixed — you can't create more of it in response to price signals. Standard tax incidence theory says the burden of a tax falls on the side of the market that's least able to adjust quantity. Since landowners can't reduce the supply of land in response to a tax, they can't pass the cost on to tenants through higher rents. The tax gets "capitalized" into a lower land value instead — the landowner absorbs it, roughly one-for-one, through a drop in what the land is worth. This is different from a tax on buildings or improvements (like most property taxes), where supply can shrink over time (less construction, less maintenance), which does tend to get partly passed through to renters. Why it might even push rents down If an LVT replaces less efficient taxes (like taxes on labor, capital, or construction), it removes the disincentive to build. A tax on land value doesn't penalize you for adding a building — unlike a conventional property tax, which taxes the improvement too. So LVT can encourage more intensive use of land (more housing built on it), which increases housing supply and puts downward pressure on rents over time. There's also an argument that LVT discourages land speculation and "warehousing" of vacant or underused sites, since holding unproductive land becomes costlier — again nudging more land into productive (housing) use."
Now, it could be that Claude is mangling basic economics.
Or it could be that you're simply wrong.
Must admit I am surprised. Still seems counter intuitive to me. Why would all landlords accept lower returns and still stay in the market. After all we have seen them exit the market because of the new regulations.
Probably because the return on investment is greater that they could get elsewhere.
Say you can let a £250,000 flat for £1,000 a month. That's a 10% return, and the property appreciates. What else would you do with that quarter of a million?
But you have agents fees, maintenance, void periods, electric and gas regulations to complied with, service charges, ground rents, licensing costs, bad debts. You would be doing well to get anywhere near a 5% yield. Yield on Uk equities or gilts look attractive with less hassle and risk.
There seems to be some new push on social media where Trump and supporters are spinning the bullshit about the US paying for NATO and carrying Europe.
It’s sort of funny they should be doing this on Independence Day when that really came about because they didn’t want to pay taxes to help cover their defence and the costs of the French Indian War. Maybe MaGAs could try and think about that.
I am very impressed by @interested's attempts to mangle the basic economics of supply and demand.
A land value tax would almost certainly lower rents, because it would discourage properties from being left empty.
O level economics if costs go up the supply curve shifts and prices rise.it’s you that is mangling the basic laws of economics
Shall we ask Claude?
"What would the likely impact on rents in the UK be of the introduction of a land value tax?"
To which Claude responded:
"Short answer: standard economic theory predicts that a well-designed land value tax (LVT) shouldn't raise rents at all, and in fact could push them down slightly.
The core theoretical argument Land differs from produced goods (like buildings) because its supply is fixed — you can't create more of it in response to price signals. Standard tax incidence theory says the burden of a tax falls on the side of the market that's least able to adjust quantity. Since landowners can't reduce the supply of land in response to a tax, they can't pass the cost on to tenants through higher rents. The tax gets "capitalized" into a lower land value instead — the landowner absorbs it, roughly one-for-one, through a drop in what the land is worth. This is different from a tax on buildings or improvements (like most property taxes), where supply can shrink over time (less construction, less maintenance), which does tend to get partly passed through to renters. Why it might even push rents down If an LVT replaces less efficient taxes (like taxes on labor, capital, or construction), it removes the disincentive to build. A tax on land value doesn't penalize you for adding a building — unlike a conventional property tax, which taxes the improvement too. So LVT can encourage more intensive use of land (more housing built on it), which increases housing supply and puts downward pressure on rents over time. There's also an argument that LVT discourages land speculation and "warehousing" of vacant or underused sites, since holding unproductive land becomes costlier — again nudging more land into productive (housing) use."
Now, it could be that Claude is mangling basic economics.
Or it could be that you're simply wrong.
"Bottom line: the near-consensus among economists (including some who disagree on almost everything else, since even fairly free-market economists like Milton Friedman have praised LVT as among the "least bad" taxes) is that LVT shouldn't increase rents and could reduce them somewhat if it stimulates new housing supply — with the main uncertainty being how cleanly it can be implemented in practice rather than whether the underlying incidence theory is sound."
Are you saying that implementing new taxes on land should decrease rents?
There’s an argument that replacing certain taxes with others can decrease rents in the medium term, but that’s very much not the same.
A Land Value Tax is -effectively- a tax on inactivity. If your property is vacant, or you have a lot and you've not built on it yet, then you're losing money.
So, it incentivizes property owners to rent out their properties rather than leave them vacant. (And if they choose instead to sell them -bearing in mind they'll be paying tax on an empty property while it waits to sell- then they will be eating the tax while waiting to accept a lower price, if other landlords are rushing to the exit at the same time.)
This assumes that there is a surplus of rented accomodation, which in the UK is certainly not the case. The rental housing stock has dropped by 30% in the last 5 years. Alternatively they can increase rents in a sellers market. Across most of the UK there are dozens of people chasing each rented property.
I am very impressed by @interested's attempts to mangle the basic economics of supply and demand.
A land value tax would almost certainly lower rents, because it would discourage properties from being left empty.
O level economics if costs go up the supply curve shifts and prices rise.it’s you that is mangling the basic laws of economics
Shall we ask Claude?
"What would the likely impact on rents in the UK be of the introduction of a land value tax?"
To which Claude responded:
"Short answer: standard economic theory predicts that a well-designed land value tax (LVT) shouldn't raise rents at all, and in fact could push them down slightly.
The core theoretical argument Land differs from produced goods (like buildings) because its supply is fixed — you can't create more of it in response to price signals. Standard tax incidence theory says the burden of a tax falls on the side of the market that's least able to adjust quantity. Since landowners can't reduce the supply of land in response to a tax, they can't pass the cost on to tenants through higher rents. The tax gets "capitalized" into a lower land value instead — the landowner absorbs it, roughly one-for-one, through a drop in what the land is worth. This is different from a tax on buildings or improvements (like most property taxes), where supply can shrink over time (less construction, less maintenance), which does tend to get partly passed through to renters. Why it might even push rents down If an LVT replaces less efficient taxes (like taxes on labor, capital, or construction), it removes the disincentive to build. A tax on land value doesn't penalize you for adding a building — unlike a conventional property tax, which taxes the improvement too. So LVT can encourage more intensive use of land (more housing built on it), which increases housing supply and puts downward pressure on rents over time. There's also an argument that LVT discourages land speculation and "warehousing" of vacant or underused sites, since holding unproductive land becomes costlier — again nudging more land into productive (housing) use."
Now, it could be that Claude is mangling basic economics.
Or it could be that you're simply wrong.
"Bottom line: the near-consensus among economists (including some who disagree on almost everything else, since even fairly free-market economists like Milton Friedman have praised LVT as among the "least bad" taxes) is that LVT shouldn't increase rents and could reduce them somewhat if it stimulates new housing supply — with the main uncertainty being how cleanly it can be implemented in practice rather than whether the underlying incidence theory is sound."
Are you saying that implementing new taxes on land should decrease rents?
There’s an argument that replacing certain taxes with others can decrease rents in the medium term, but that’s very much not the same.
A Land Value Tax is -effectively- a tax on inactivity. If your property is vacant, or you have a lot and you've not built on it yet, then you're losing money.
So, it incentivizes property owners to rent out their properties rather than leave them vacant. (And if they choose instead to sell them -bearing in mind they'll be paying tax on an empty property while it waits to sell- then they will be eating the tax while waiting to accept a lower price, if other landlords are rushing to the exit at the same time.)
This assumes that there is a surplus of rented accomodation, which in the UK is certainly not the case. The rental housing stock has dropped by 30% in the last 5 years. Alternatively they can increase rents in a sellers market. Across most of the UK there are dozens of people chasing each rented property.
And we have a very low number of vacant properties.
I am very impressed by @interested's attempts to mangle the basic economics of supply and demand.
A land value tax would almost certainly lower rents, because it would discourage properties from being left empty.
O level economics if costs go up the supply curve shifts and prices rise.it’s you that is mangling the basic laws of economics
Shall we ask Claude?
"What would the likely impact on rents in the UK be of the introduction of a land value tax?"
To which Claude responded:
"Short answer: standard economic theory predicts that a well-designed land value tax (LVT) shouldn't raise rents at all, and in fact could push them down slightly.
The core theoretical argument Land differs from produced goods (like buildings) because its supply is fixed — you can't create more of it in response to price signals. Standard tax incidence theory says the burden of a tax falls on the side of the market that's least able to adjust quantity. Since landowners can't reduce the supply of land in response to a tax, they can't pass the cost on to tenants through higher rents. The tax gets "capitalized" into a lower land value instead — the landowner absorbs it, roughly one-for-one, through a drop in what the land is worth. This is different from a tax on buildings or improvements (like most property taxes), where supply can shrink over time (less construction, less maintenance), which does tend to get partly passed through to renters. Why it might even push rents down If an LVT replaces less efficient taxes (like taxes on labor, capital, or construction), it removes the disincentive to build. A tax on land value doesn't penalize you for adding a building — unlike a conventional property tax, which taxes the improvement too. So LVT can encourage more intensive use of land (more housing built on it), which increases housing supply and puts downward pressure on rents over time. There's also an argument that LVT discourages land speculation and "warehousing" of vacant or underused sites, since holding unproductive land becomes costlier — again nudging more land into productive (housing) use."
Now, it could be that Claude is mangling basic economics.
Or it could be that you're simply wrong.
Must admit I am surprised. Still seems counter intuitive to me. Why would all landlords accept lower returns and still stay in the market. After all we have seen them exit the market because of the new regulations.
Probably because the return on investment is greater that they could get elsewhere.
Say you can let a £250,000 flat for £1,000 a month. That's a 10% return, and the property appreciates. What else would you do with that quarter of a million?
But you have agents fees, maintenance, void periods, electric and gas regulations to complied with, service charges, ground rents, licensing costs, bad debts. You would be doing well to get anywhere near a 5% yield. Yield on Uk equities or gilts look attractive with less hassle and risk.
That's fine though. There's something wrong if you can coin it (good yield plus capital gains) simply by buying and renting out property. That those times seem to be over in many places in the UK is not a mourning matter. It should be an activity where a 'solid but no more' return is possible so long as you do it to a professional standard and always remember that your investment is somebody's home.
Sadly, due to time zones, some of us have to go to bed shortly, but one suspects there’s about to be a million videos of the greatest birthday party of all time.
I am very impressed by @interested's attempts to mangle the basic economics of supply and demand.
A land value tax would almost certainly lower rents, because it would discourage properties from being left empty.
O level economics if costs go up the supply curve shifts and prices rise.it’s you that is mangling the basic laws of economics
Shall we ask Claude?
"What would the likely impact on rents in the UK be of the introduction of a land value tax?"
To which Claude responded:
"Short answer: standard economic theory predicts that a well-designed land value tax (LVT) shouldn't raise rents at all, and in fact could push them down slightly.
The core theoretical argument Land differs from produced goods (like buildings) because its supply is fixed — you can't create more of it in response to price signals. Standard tax incidence theory says the burden of a tax falls on the side of the market that's least able to adjust quantity. Since landowners can't reduce the supply of land in response to a tax, they can't pass the cost on to tenants through higher rents. The tax gets "capitalized" into a lower land value instead — the landowner absorbs it, roughly one-for-one, through a drop in what the land is worth. This is different from a tax on buildings or improvements (like most property taxes), where supply can shrink over time (less construction, less maintenance), which does tend to get partly passed through to renters. Why it might even push rents down If an LVT replaces less efficient taxes (like taxes on labor, capital, or construction), it removes the disincentive to build. A tax on land value doesn't penalize you for adding a building — unlike a conventional property tax, which taxes the improvement too. So LVT can encourage more intensive use of land (more housing built on it), which increases housing supply and puts downward pressure on rents over time. There's also an argument that LVT discourages land speculation and "warehousing" of vacant or underused sites, since holding unproductive land becomes costlier — again nudging more land into productive (housing) use."
Now, it could be that Claude is mangling basic economics.
Or it could be that you're simply wrong.
Must admit I am surprised. Still seems counter intuitive to me. Why would all landlords accept lower returns and still stay in the market. After all we have seen them exit the market because of the new regulations.
Probably because the return on investment is greater that they could get elsewhere.
Say you can let a £250,000 flat for £1,000 a month. That's a 10% return, and the property appreciates. What else would you do with that quarter of a million?
But you have agents fees, maintenance, void periods, electric and gas regulations to complied with, service charges, ground rents, licensing costs, bad debts. You would be doing well to get anywhere near a 5% yield. Yield on Uk equities or gilts look attractive with less hassle and risk.
That's fine though. There's something wrong if you can coin it (good yield plus capital gains) simply by buying and renting out property. That those times seem to be over in many places in the UK is not a mourning matter. It should be an activity where a 'solid but no more' return is possible so long as you do it to a professional standard and always remember that your investment is somebody's home.
I am very impressed by @interested's attempts to mangle the basic economics of supply and demand.
A land value tax would almost certainly lower rents, because it would discourage properties from being left empty.
O level economics if costs go up the supply curve shifts and prices rise.it’s you that is mangling the basic laws of economics
Shall we ask Claude?
"What would the likely impact on rents in the UK be of the introduction of a land value tax?"
To which Claude responded:
"Short answer: standard economic theory predicts that a well-designed land value tax (LVT) shouldn't raise rents at all, and in fact could push them down slightly.
The core theoretical argument Land differs from produced goods (like buildings) because its supply is fixed — you can't create more of it in response to price signals. Standard tax incidence theory says the burden of a tax falls on the side of the market that's least able to adjust quantity. Since landowners can't reduce the supply of land in response to a tax, they can't pass the cost on to tenants through higher rents. The tax gets "capitalized" into a lower land value instead — the landowner absorbs it, roughly one-for-one, through a drop in what the land is worth. This is different from a tax on buildings or improvements (like most property taxes), where supply can shrink over time (less construction, less maintenance), which does tend to get partly passed through to renters. Why it might even push rents down If an LVT replaces less efficient taxes (like taxes on labor, capital, or construction), it removes the disincentive to build. A tax on land value doesn't penalize you for adding a building — unlike a conventional property tax, which taxes the improvement too. So LVT can encourage more intensive use of land (more housing built on it), which increases housing supply and puts downward pressure on rents over time. There's also an argument that LVT discourages land speculation and "warehousing" of vacant or underused sites, since holding unproductive land becomes costlier — again nudging more land into productive (housing) use."
Now, it could be that Claude is mangling basic economics.
Or it could be that you're simply wrong.
Must admit I am surprised. Still seems counter intuitive to me. Why would all landlords accept lower returns and still stay in the market. After all we have seen them exit the market because of the new regulations.
There are two forms of return. The first is income and the second is capital gain. To date both have been excellent for the amateur but as the market professionalising, a lot have taken their cash from the market and are looking elsewhere. The main issue for them is the flood of properties on the market depressing capital gains in the short term. Last man standing should do well (as they usually do)
There seems to be some new push on social media where Trump and supporters are spinning the bullshit about the US paying for NATO and carrying Europe.
It’s sort of funny they should be doing this on Independence Day when that really came about because they didn’t want to pay taxes to help cover their defence and the costs of the French Indian War. Maybe MaGAs could try and think about that.
My lifelong affection for America is on pause.
Yes, and I am not sure it is coming back. They have elected an imbecile like Trump twice. What does he represent? Corruption, arrogance, patronising tosh. The USA now abuses its erstwhile allies. It abuses countries like Ukraine who should be natural friends. They impose cavalier and irrational penalties like tariffs. With a deeply corrupt and utterly dishonest Supreme Court they have abandoned any interest in the rule of law. To blame all of this on one kleptomaniac is to give the US a pass it frankly does not deserve. We need better friends and more reliable defence. It is time to wave a sad goodbye.
I am very impressed by @interested's attempts to mangle the basic economics of supply and demand.
A land value tax would almost certainly lower rents, because it would discourage properties from being left empty.
O level economics if costs go up the supply curve shifts and prices rise.it’s you that is mangling the basic laws of economics
Shall we ask Claude?
"What would the likely impact on rents in the UK be of the introduction of a land value tax?"
To which Claude responded:
"Short answer: standard economic theory predicts that a well-designed land value tax (LVT) shouldn't raise rents at all, and in fact could push them down slightly.
The core theoretical argument Land differs from produced goods (like buildings) because its supply is fixed — you can't create more of it in response to price signals. Standard tax incidence theory says the burden of a tax falls on the side of the market that's least able to adjust quantity. Since landowners can't reduce the supply of land in response to a tax, they can't pass the cost on to tenants through higher rents. The tax gets "capitalized" into a lower land value instead — the landowner absorbs it, roughly one-for-one, through a drop in what the land is worth. This is different from a tax on buildings or improvements (like most property taxes), where supply can shrink over time (less construction, less maintenance), which does tend to get partly passed through to renters. Why it might even push rents down If an LVT replaces less efficient taxes (like taxes on labor, capital, or construction), it removes the disincentive to build. A tax on land value doesn't penalize you for adding a building — unlike a conventional property tax, which taxes the improvement too. So LVT can encourage more intensive use of land (more housing built on it), which increases housing supply and puts downward pressure on rents over time. There's also an argument that LVT discourages land speculation and "warehousing" of vacant or underused sites, since holding unproductive land becomes costlier — again nudging more land into productive (housing) use."
Now, it could be that Claude is mangling basic economics.
Or it could be that you're simply wrong.
Must admit I am surprised. Still seems counter intuitive to me. Why would all landlords accept lower returns and still stay in the market. After all we have seen them exit the market because of the new regulations.
Probably because the return on investment is greater that they could get elsewhere.
Say you can let a £250,000 flat for £1,000 a month. That's a 10% return, and the property appreciates. What else would you do with that quarter of a million?
But you have agents fees, maintenance, void periods, electric and gas regulations to complied with, service charges, ground rents, licensing costs, bad debts. You would be doing well to get anywhere near a 5% yield. Yield on Uk equities or gilts look attractive with less hassle and risk.
That's fine though. There's something wrong if you can coin it (good yield plus capital gains) simply by buying and renting out property. That those times seem to be over in many places in the UK is not a mourning matter. It should be an activity where a 'solid but no more' return is possible so long as you do it to a professional standard and always remember that your investment is somebody's home.
Don’t disagree
Well that's popped my balloon. I'll stop chuntering on then.
I am very impressed by @interested's attempts to mangle the basic economics of supply and demand.
A land value tax would almost certainly lower rents, because it would discourage properties from being left empty.
O level economics if costs go up the supply curve shifts and prices rise.it’s you that is mangling the basic laws of economics
Shall we ask Claude?
"What would the likely impact on rents in the UK be of the introduction of a land value tax?"
To which Claude responded:
"Short answer: standard economic theory predicts that a well-designed land value tax (LVT) shouldn't raise rents at all, and in fact could push them down slightly.
The core theoretical argument Land differs from produced goods (like buildings) because its supply is fixed — you can't create more of it in response to price signals. Standard tax incidence theory says the burden of a tax falls on the side of the market that's least able to adjust quantity. Since landowners can't reduce the supply of land in response to a tax, they can't pass the cost on to tenants through higher rents. The tax gets "capitalized" into a lower land value instead — the landowner absorbs it, roughly one-for-one, through a drop in what the land is worth. This is different from a tax on buildings or improvements (like most property taxes), where supply can shrink over time (less construction, less maintenance), which does tend to get partly passed through to renters. Why it might even push rents down If an LVT replaces less efficient taxes (like taxes on labor, capital, or construction), it removes the disincentive to build. A tax on land value doesn't penalize you for adding a building — unlike a conventional property tax, which taxes the improvement too. So LVT can encourage more intensive use of land (more housing built on it), which increases housing supply and puts downward pressure on rents over time. There's also an argument that LVT discourages land speculation and "warehousing" of vacant or underused sites, since holding unproductive land becomes costlier — again nudging more land into productive (housing) use."
Now, it could be that Claude is mangling basic economics.
Or it could be that you're simply wrong.
Must admit I am surprised. Still seems counter intuitive to me. Why would all landlords accept lower returns and still stay in the market. After all we have seen them exit the market because of the new regulations.
Probably because the return on investment is greater that they could get elsewhere.
Say you can let a £250,000 flat for £1,000 a month. That's a 10% return, and the property appreciates. What else would you do with that quarter of a million?
But you have agents fees, maintenance, void periods, electric and gas regulations to complied with, service charges, ground rents, licensing costs, bad debts. You would be doing well to get anywhere near a 5% yield. Yield on Uk equities or gilts look attractive with less hassle and risk.
That's fine though. There's something wrong if you can coin it (good yield plus capital gains) simply by buying and renting out property. That those times seem to be over in many places in the UK is not a mourning matter. It should be an activity where a 'solid but no more' return is possible so long as you do it to a professional standard and always remember that your investment is somebody's home.
Don’t disagree
Well that's popped my balloon. I'll stop chuntering on then.
What a super exchange 🙂
The basic problem is that the cost of creating properties has skyrocketed. We have hit an affordability ceiling in a number of areas. Which has shut down further construction.
Government can build, but must then do one of the following
1) take a loss to provide affordable housing 2) build expensive properties 3) reduce the cost of properties
I am very impressed by @interested's attempts to mangle the basic economics of supply and demand.
A land value tax would almost certainly lower rents, because it would discourage properties from being left empty.
O level economics if costs go up the supply curve shifts and prices rise.it’s you that is mangling the basic laws of economics
Shall we ask Claude?
"What would the likely impact on rents in the UK be of the introduction of a land value tax?"
To which Claude responded:
"Short answer: standard economic theory predicts that a well-designed land value tax (LVT) shouldn't raise rents at all, and in fact could push them down slightly.
The core theoretical argument Land differs from produced goods (like buildings) because its supply is fixed — you can't create more of it in response to price signals. Standard tax incidence theory says the burden of a tax falls on the side of the market that's least able to adjust quantity. Since landowners can't reduce the supply of land in response to a tax, they can't pass the cost on to tenants through higher rents. The tax gets "capitalized" into a lower land value instead — the landowner absorbs it, roughly one-for-one, through a drop in what the land is worth. This is different from a tax on buildings or improvements (like most property taxes), where supply can shrink over time (less construction, less maintenance), which does tend to get partly passed through to renters. Why it might even push rents down If an LVT replaces less efficient taxes (like taxes on labor, capital, or construction), it removes the disincentive to build. A tax on land value doesn't penalize you for adding a building — unlike a conventional property tax, which taxes the improvement too. So LVT can encourage more intensive use of land (more housing built on it), which increases housing supply and puts downward pressure on rents over time. There's also an argument that LVT discourages land speculation and "warehousing" of vacant or underused sites, since holding unproductive land becomes costlier — again nudging more land into productive (housing) use."
Now, it could be that Claude is mangling basic economics.
Or it could be that you're simply wrong.
Must admit I am surprised. Still seems counter intuitive to me. Why would all landlords accept lower returns and still stay in the market. After all we have seen them exit the market because of the new regulations.
Probably because the return on investment is greater that they could get elsewhere.
Say you can let a £250,000 flat for £1,000 a month. That's a 10% return, and the property appreciates. What else would you do with that quarter of a million?
But you have agents fees, maintenance, void periods, electric and gas regulations to complied with, service charges, ground rents, licensing costs, bad debts. You would be doing well to get anywhere near a 5% yield. Yield on Uk equities or gilts look attractive with less hassle and risk.
That's fine though. There's something wrong if you can coin it (good yield plus capital gains) simply by buying and renting out property. That those times seem to be over in many places in the UK is not a mourning matter. It should be an activity where a 'solid but no more' return is possible so long as you do it to a professional standard and always remember that your investment is somebody's home.
Don’t disagree
Well that's popped my balloon. I'll stop chuntering on then.
What a super exchange 🙂
The basic problem is that the cost of creating properties has skyrocketed. We have hit an affordability ceiling in a number of areas. Which has shut down further construction.
Government can build, but must then do one of the following
1) take a loss to provide affordable housing 2) build expensive properties 3) reduce the cost of properties
Sadly, due to time zones, some of us have to go to bed shortly, but one suspects there’s about to be a million videos of the greatest birthday party of all time.
1812 War, that;'s the one where we burnt the White House?
There seems to be some new push on social media where Trump and supporters are spinning the bullshit about the US paying for NATO and carrying Europe.
It’s sort of funny they should be doing this on Independence Day when that really came about because they didn’t want to pay taxes to help cover their defence and the costs of the French Indian War. Maybe MaGAs could try and think about that.
My lifelong affection for America is on pause.
Yes, and I am not sure it is coming back. They have elected an imbecile like Trump twice. What does he represent? Corruption, arrogance, patronising tosh. The USA now abuses its erstwhile allies. It abuses countries like Ukraine who should be natural friends. They impose cavalier and irrational penalties like tariffs. With a deeply corrupt and utterly dishonest Supreme Court they have abandoned any interest in the rule of law. To blame all of this on one kleptomaniac is to give the US a pass it frankly does not deserve. We need better friends and more reliable defence. It is time to wave a sad goodbye.
I agree in spades but I'm not quite there yet. If the GOP stays rotten after Donald Trump I will be. By rotten I mean all this braindead nasty stuff that he has exploited and encouraged, I don't mean economically right wing and socially conservative politics. That's just on the whole contrary to what I happen to prefer, it's not a mortal threat to decency and civilisation.
Sadly, due to time zones, some of us have to go to bed shortly, but one suspects there’s about to be a million videos of the greatest birthday party of all time.
1812 War, that;'s the one where we burnt the White House?
How thoughtful of the current President to show us what a ruined White House looks like.
I am very impressed by @interested's attempts to mangle the basic economics of supply and demand.
A land value tax would almost certainly lower rents, because it would discourage properties from being left empty.
O level economics if costs go up the supply curve shifts and prices rise.it’s you that is mangling the basic laws of economics
Shall we ask Claude?
"What would the likely impact on rents in the UK be of the introduction of a land value tax?"
To which Claude responded:
"Short answer: standard economic theory predicts that a well-designed land value tax (LVT) shouldn't raise rents at all, and in fact could push them down slightly.
The core theoretical argument Land differs from produced goods (like buildings) because its supply is fixed — you can't create more of it in response to price signals. Standard tax incidence theory says the burden of a tax falls on the side of the market that's least able to adjust quantity. Since landowners can't reduce the supply of land in response to a tax, they can't pass the cost on to tenants through higher rents. The tax gets "capitalized" into a lower land value instead — the landowner absorbs it, roughly one-for-one, through a drop in what the land is worth. This is different from a tax on buildings or improvements (like most property taxes), where supply can shrink over time (less construction, less maintenance), which does tend to get partly passed through to renters. Why it might even push rents down If an LVT replaces less efficient taxes (like taxes on labor, capital, or construction), it removes the disincentive to build. A tax on land value doesn't penalize you for adding a building — unlike a conventional property tax, which taxes the improvement too. So LVT can encourage more intensive use of land (more housing built on it), which increases housing supply and puts downward pressure on rents over time. There's also an argument that LVT discourages land speculation and "warehousing" of vacant or underused sites, since holding unproductive land becomes costlier — again nudging more land into productive (housing) use."
Now, it could be that Claude is mangling basic economics.
Or it could be that you're simply wrong.
Must admit I am surprised. Still seems counter intuitive to me. Why would all landlords accept lower returns and still stay in the market. After all we have seen them exit the market because of the new regulations.
Probably because the return on investment is greater that they could get elsewhere.
Say you can let a £250,000 flat for £1,000 a month. That's a 10% return, and the property appreciates. What else would you do with that quarter of a million?
But you have agents fees, maintenance, void periods, electric and gas regulations to complied with, service charges, ground rents, licensing costs, bad debts. You would be doing well to get anywhere near a 5% yield. Yield on Uk equities or gilts look attractive with less hassle and risk.
That's fine though. There's something wrong if you can coin it (good yield plus capital gains) simply by buying and renting out property. That those times seem to be over in many places in the UK is not a mourning matter. It should be an activity where a 'solid but no more' return is possible so long as you do it to a professional standard and always remember that your investment is somebody's home.
Don’t disagree
Well that's popped my balloon. I'll stop chuntering on then.
What a super exchange 🙂
The basic problem is that the cost of creating properties has skyrocketed. We have hit an affordability ceiling in a number of areas. Which has shut down further construction.
Government can build, but must then do one of the following
1) take a loss to provide affordable housing 2) build expensive properties 3) reduce the cost of properties
Yes, high build costs from one end, affordability from the other. A big squeeze.
I would like to see a mix of 1 and 3. And 3 mitigates 1 of course.
There seems to be some new push on social media where Trump and supporters are spinning the bullshit about the US paying for NATO and carrying Europe.
It’s sort of funny they should be doing this on Independence Day when that really came about because they didn’t want to pay taxes to help cover their defence and the costs of the French Indian War. Maybe MaGAs could try and think about that.
My lifelong affection for America is on pause.
The thing is, is that it has been US policy to make us all dependent on US defence. They've been pushing the defence drugs for 80 years. And if you buy your defence from the US, then clearly they're good, so why not buy your computers too.
I am very impressed by @interested's attempts to mangle the basic economics of supply and demand.
A land value tax would almost certainly lower rents, because it would discourage properties from being left empty.
O level economics if costs go up the supply curve shifts and prices rise.it’s you that is mangling the basic laws of economics
Shall we ask Claude?
"What would the likely impact on rents in the UK be of the introduction of a land value tax?"
To which Claude responded:
"Short answer: standard economic theory predicts that a well-designed land value tax (LVT) shouldn't raise rents at all, and in fact could push them down slightly.
The core theoretical argument Land differs from produced goods (like buildings) because its supply is fixed — you can't create more of it in response to price signals. Standard tax incidence theory says the burden of a tax falls on the side of the market that's least able to adjust quantity. Since landowners can't reduce the supply of land in response to a tax, they can't pass the cost on to tenants through higher rents. The tax gets "capitalized" into a lower land value instead — the landowner absorbs it, roughly one-for-one, through a drop in what the land is worth. This is different from a tax on buildings or improvements (like most property taxes), where supply can shrink over time (less construction, less maintenance), which does tend to get partly passed through to renters. Why it might even push rents down If an LVT replaces less efficient taxes (like taxes on labor, capital, or construction), it removes the disincentive to build. A tax on land value doesn't penalize you for adding a building — unlike a conventional property tax, which taxes the improvement too. So LVT can encourage more intensive use of land (more housing built on it), which increases housing supply and puts downward pressure on rents over time. There's also an argument that LVT discourages land speculation and "warehousing" of vacant or underused sites, since holding unproductive land becomes costlier — again nudging more land into productive (housing) use."
Now, it could be that Claude is mangling basic economics.
Or it could be that you're simply wrong.
Must admit I am surprised. Still seems counter intuitive to me. Why would all landlords accept lower returns and still stay in the market. After all we have seen them exit the market because of the new regulations.
Probably because the return on investment is greater that they could get elsewhere.
Say you can let a £250,000 flat for £1,000 a month. That's a 10% return, and the property appreciates. What else would you do with that quarter of a million?
But you have agents fees, maintenance, void periods, electric and gas regulations to complied with, service charges, ground rents, licensing costs, bad debts. You would be doing well to get anywhere near a 5% yield. Yield on Uk equities or gilts look attractive with less hassle and risk.
That's fine though. There's something wrong if you can coin it (good yield plus capital gains) simply by buying and renting out property. That those times seem to be over in many places in the UK is not a mourning matter. It should be an activity where a 'solid but no more' return is possible so long as you do it to a professional standard and always remember that your investment is somebody's home.
Don’t disagree
Well that's popped my balloon. I'll stop chuntering on then.
What a super exchange 🙂
The basic problem is that the cost of creating properties has skyrocketed. We have hit an affordability ceiling in a number of areas. Which has shut down further construction.
Government can build, but must then do one of the following
1) take a loss to provide affordable housing 2) build expensive properties 3) reduce the cost of properties
But if the government builds houses, it will doubtless create a surplus of ugly, crap ones and a shortage of good ones, as it usually does when it tries to produce anything.
Oligopolistic developers aren't much better either.
Self-build is the clear, screaming, obvious answer, as in most of continental Europe, e.g. Austria where 80% of new houses are self-built, compared to 10% in the UK, half of which are in Northern Ireland.
That way the person who builds the thing has at least some interest in its quality and visual appeal
Sadly, due to time zones, some of us have to go to bed shortly, but one suspects there’s about to be a million videos of the greatest birthday party of all time.
Owing to time zones, I doubt that video is of this year's performance.
I am very impressed by @interested's attempts to mangle the basic economics of supply and demand.
A land value tax would almost certainly lower rents, because it would discourage properties from being left empty.
O level economics if costs go up the supply curve shifts and prices rise.it’s you that is mangling the basic laws of economics
Shall we ask Claude?
"What would the likely impact on rents in the UK be of the introduction of a land value tax?"
To which Claude responded:
"Short answer: standard economic theory predicts that a well-designed land value tax (LVT) shouldn't raise rents at all, and in fact could push them down slightly.
The core theoretical argument Land differs from produced goods (like buildings) because its supply is fixed — you can't create more of it in response to price signals. Standard tax incidence theory says the burden of a tax falls on the side of the market that's least able to adjust quantity. Since landowners can't reduce the supply of land in response to a tax, they can't pass the cost on to tenants through higher rents. The tax gets "capitalized" into a lower land value instead — the landowner absorbs it, roughly one-for-one, through a drop in what the land is worth. This is different from a tax on buildings or improvements (like most property taxes), where supply can shrink over time (less construction, less maintenance), which does tend to get partly passed through to renters. Why it might even push rents down If an LVT replaces less efficient taxes (like taxes on labor, capital, or construction), it removes the disincentive to build. A tax on land value doesn't penalize you for adding a building — unlike a conventional property tax, which taxes the improvement too. So LVT can encourage more intensive use of land (more housing built on it), which increases housing supply and puts downward pressure on rents over time. There's also an argument that LVT discourages land speculation and "warehousing" of vacant or underused sites, since holding unproductive land becomes costlier — again nudging more land into productive (housing) use."
Now, it could be that Claude is mangling basic economics.
Or it could be that you're simply wrong.
Must admit I am surprised. Still seems counter intuitive to me. Why would all landlords accept lower returns and still stay in the market. After all we have seen them exit the market because of the new regulations.
Probably because the return on investment is greater that they could get elsewhere.
Say you can let a £250,000 flat for £1,000 a month. That's a 10% return, and the property appreciates. What else would you do with that quarter of a million?
But you have agents fees, maintenance, void periods, electric and gas regulations to complied with, service charges, ground rents, licensing costs, bad debts. You would be doing well to get anywhere near a 5% yield. Yield on Uk equities or gilts look attractive with less hassle and risk.
House prices will adjust (i.e. fall) to ensure that you get the same ultimate yield.
I am very impressed by @interested's attempts to mangle the basic economics of supply and demand.
A land value tax would almost certainly lower rents, because it would discourage properties from being left empty.
O level economics if costs go up the supply curve shifts and prices rise.it’s you that is mangling the basic laws of economics
Shall we ask Claude?
"What would the likely impact on rents in the UK be of the introduction of a land value tax?"
To which Claude responded:
"Short answer: standard economic theory predicts that a well-designed land value tax (LVT) shouldn't raise rents at all, and in fact could push them down slightly.
The core theoretical argument Land differs from produced goods (like buildings) because its supply is fixed — you can't create more of it in response to price signals. Standard tax incidence theory says the burden of a tax falls on the side of the market that's least able to adjust quantity. Since landowners can't reduce the supply of land in response to a tax, they can't pass the cost on to tenants through higher rents. The tax gets "capitalized" into a lower land value instead — the landowner absorbs it, roughly one-for-one, through a drop in what the land is worth. This is different from a tax on buildings or improvements (like most property taxes), where supply can shrink over time (less construction, less maintenance), which does tend to get partly passed through to renters. Why it might even push rents down If an LVT replaces less efficient taxes (like taxes on labor, capital, or construction), it removes the disincentive to build. A tax on land value doesn't penalize you for adding a building — unlike a conventional property tax, which taxes the improvement too. So LVT can encourage more intensive use of land (more housing built on it), which increases housing supply and puts downward pressure on rents over time. There's also an argument that LVT discourages land speculation and "warehousing" of vacant or underused sites, since holding unproductive land becomes costlier — again nudging more land into productive (housing) use."
Now, it could be that Claude is mangling basic economics.
Or it could be that you're simply wrong.
Must admit I am surprised. Still seems counter intuitive to me. Why would all landlords accept lower returns and still stay in the market. After all we have seen them exit the market because of the new regulations.
Probably because the return on investment is greater that they could get elsewhere.
Say you can let a £250,000 flat for £1,000 a month. That's a 10% return, and the property appreciates. What else would you do with that quarter of a million?
But you have agents fees, maintenance, void periods, electric and gas regulations to complied with, service charges, ground rents, licensing costs, bad debts. You would be doing well to get anywhere near a 5% yield. Yield on Uk equities or gilts look attractive with less hassle and risk.
That's fine though. There's something wrong if you can coin it (good yield plus capital gains) simply by buying and renting out property. That those times seem to be over in many places in the UK is not a mourning matter. It should be an activity where a 'solid but no more' return is possible so long as you do it to a professional standard and always remember that your investment is somebody's home.
Don’t disagree
Well that's popped my balloon. I'll stop chuntering on then.
What a super exchange 🙂
The basic problem is that the cost of creating properties has skyrocketed. We have hit an affordability ceiling in a number of areas. Which has shut down further construction.
Government can build, but must then do one of the following
1) take a loss to provide affordable housing 2) build expensive properties 3) reduce the cost of properties
You're not wrong about the cost of construction - in London we have the Community Infrastructure Levy, Carbon Offset Levy and Section 106 and I suspect others.
The argument is if you add more dwellings into existing communities that puts pressure on both kinds of infrastructure - the "hard", such as pipes, sewage, cables, wires etc and the "soft" -medical and transport capacities, schools and perhaps crime. Existing residents want some kind of if not guarantee then reassurance they won't be the losers if thousands of new dwellings are added to their area.
You can turn a deaf ear as many on here do and call it "NIMBY" but the truth is settled communities are concerned by the possible addition of considerable numbers of new properties without their consent.
I am very impressed by @interested's attempts to mangle the basic economics of supply and demand.
A land value tax would almost certainly lower rents, because it would discourage properties from being left empty.
O level economics if costs go up the supply curve shifts and prices rise.it’s you that is mangling the basic laws of economics
Shall we ask Claude?
"What would the likely impact on rents in the UK be of the introduction of a land value tax?"
To which Claude responded:
"Short answer: standard economic theory predicts that a well-designed land value tax (LVT) shouldn't raise rents at all, and in fact could push them down slightly.
The core theoretical argument Land differs from produced goods (like buildings) because its supply is fixed — you can't create more of it in response to price signals. Standard tax incidence theory says the burden of a tax falls on the side of the market that's least able to adjust quantity. Since landowners can't reduce the supply of land in response to a tax, they can't pass the cost on to tenants through higher rents. The tax gets "capitalized" into a lower land value instead — the landowner absorbs it, roughly one-for-one, through a drop in what the land is worth. This is different from a tax on buildings or improvements (like most property taxes), where supply can shrink over time (less construction, less maintenance), which does tend to get partly passed through to renters. Why it might even push rents down If an LVT replaces less efficient taxes (like taxes on labor, capital, or construction), it removes the disincentive to build. A tax on land value doesn't penalize you for adding a building — unlike a conventional property tax, which taxes the improvement too. So LVT can encourage more intensive use of land (more housing built on it), which increases housing supply and puts downward pressure on rents over time. There's also an argument that LVT discourages land speculation and "warehousing" of vacant or underused sites, since holding unproductive land becomes costlier — again nudging more land into productive (housing) use."
Now, it could be that Claude is mangling basic economics.
Or it could be that you're simply wrong.
Must admit I am surprised. Still seems counter intuitive to me. Why would all landlords accept lower returns and still stay in the market. After all we have seen them exit the market because of the new regulations.
Probably because the return on investment is greater that they could get elsewhere.
Say you can let a £250,000 flat for £1,000 a month. That's a 10% return, and the property appreciates. What else would you do with that quarter of a million?
But you have agents fees, maintenance, void periods, electric and gas regulations to complied with, service charges, ground rents, licensing costs, bad debts. You would be doing well to get anywhere near a 5% yield. Yield on Uk equities or gilts look attractive with less hassle and risk.
House prices will adjust (i.e. fall) to ensure that you get the same ultimate yield.
Houses might actually have a negative value at some point with the left in charge. I just sold my house for minus 2 million says the chap in Burnham's Britain!
I am very impressed by @interested's attempts to mangle the basic economics of supply and demand.
A land value tax would almost certainly lower rents, because it would discourage properties from being left empty.
O level economics if costs go up the supply curve shifts and prices rise.it’s you that is mangling the basic laws of economics
Shall we ask Claude?
"What would the likely impact on rents in the UK be of the introduction of a land value tax?"
To which Claude responded:
"Short answer: standard economic theory predicts that a well-designed land value tax (LVT) shouldn't raise rents at all, and in fact could push them down slightly.
The core theoretical argument Land differs from produced goods (like buildings) because its supply is fixed — you can't create more of it in response to price signals. Standard tax incidence theory says the burden of a tax falls on the side of the market that's least able to adjust quantity. Since landowners can't reduce the supply of land in response to a tax, they can't pass the cost on to tenants through higher rents. The tax gets "capitalized" into a lower land value instead — the landowner absorbs it, roughly one-for-one, through a drop in what the land is worth. This is different from a tax on buildings or improvements (like most property taxes), where supply can shrink over time (less construction, less maintenance), which does tend to get partly passed through to renters. Why it might even push rents down If an LVT replaces less efficient taxes (like taxes on labor, capital, or construction), it removes the disincentive to build. A tax on land value doesn't penalize you for adding a building — unlike a conventional property tax, which taxes the improvement too. So LVT can encourage more intensive use of land (more housing built on it), which increases housing supply and puts downward pressure on rents over time. There's also an argument that LVT discourages land speculation and "warehousing" of vacant or underused sites, since holding unproductive land becomes costlier — again nudging more land into productive (housing) use."
Now, it could be that Claude is mangling basic economics.
Or it could be that you're simply wrong.
Must admit I am surprised. Still seems counter intuitive to me. Why would all landlords accept lower returns and still stay in the market. After all we have seen them exit the market because of the new regulations.
Probably because the return on investment is greater that they could get elsewhere.
Say you can let a £250,000 flat for £1,000 a month. That's a 10% return, and the property appreciates. What else would you do with that quarter of a million?
But you have agents fees, maintenance, void periods, electric and gas regulations to complied with, service charges, ground rents, licensing costs, bad debts. You would be doing well to get anywhere near a 5% yield. Yield on Uk equities or gilts look attractive with less hassle and risk.
House prices will adjust (i.e. fall) to ensure that you get the same ultimate yield.
Yes I think London house prices have a long way to fall in real terms. They haven't adapted to 5% risk-free yields and reduced net migration.
I suspect they get there the hidden way via 30% cumulative inflation over a decade rather than the sticker prices moving much.
I am very impressed by @interested's attempts to mangle the basic economics of supply and demand.
A land value tax would almost certainly lower rents, because it would discourage properties from being left empty.
O level economics if costs go up the supply curve shifts and prices rise.it’s you that is mangling the basic laws of economics
Shall we ask Claude?
"What would the likely impact on rents in the UK be of the introduction of a land value tax?"
To which Claude responded:
"Short answer: standard economic theory predicts that a well-designed land value tax (LVT) shouldn't raise rents at all, and in fact could push them down slightly.
The core theoretical argument Land differs from produced goods (like buildings) because its supply is fixed — you can't create more of it in response to price signals. Standard tax incidence theory says the burden of a tax falls on the side of the market that's least able to adjust quantity. Since landowners can't reduce the supply of land in response to a tax, they can't pass the cost on to tenants through higher rents. The tax gets "capitalized" into a lower land value instead — the landowner absorbs it, roughly one-for-one, through a drop in what the land is worth. This is different from a tax on buildings or improvements (like most property taxes), where supply can shrink over time (less construction, less maintenance), which does tend to get partly passed through to renters. Why it might even push rents down If an LVT replaces less efficient taxes (like taxes on labor, capital, or construction), it removes the disincentive to build. A tax on land value doesn't penalize you for adding a building — unlike a conventional property tax, which taxes the improvement too. So LVT can encourage more intensive use of land (more housing built on it), which increases housing supply and puts downward pressure on rents over time. There's also an argument that LVT discourages land speculation and "warehousing" of vacant or underused sites, since holding unproductive land becomes costlier — again nudging more land into productive (housing) use."
Now, it could be that Claude is mangling basic economics.
Or it could be that you're simply wrong.
Must admit I am surprised. Still seems counter intuitive to me. Why would all landlords accept lower returns and still stay in the market. After all we have seen them exit the market because of the new regulations.
Probably because the return on investment is greater that they could get elsewhere.
Say you can let a £250,000 flat for £1,000 a month. That's a 10% return, and the property appreciates. What else would you do with that quarter of a million?
But you have agents fees, maintenance, void periods, electric and gas regulations to complied with, service charges, ground rents, licensing costs, bad debts. You would be doing well to get anywhere near a 5% yield. Yield on Uk equities or gilts look attractive with less hassle and risk.
That's fine though. There's something wrong if you can coin it (good yield plus capital gains) simply by buying and renting out property. That those times seem to be over in many places in the UK is not a mourning matter. It should be an activity where a 'solid but no more' return is possible so long as you do it to a professional standard and always remember that your investment is somebody's home.
Don’t disagree
Well that's popped my balloon. I'll stop chuntering on then.
What a super exchange 🙂
The basic problem is that the cost of creating properties has skyrocketed. We have hit an affordability ceiling in a number of areas. Which has shut down further construction.
Government can build, but must then do one of the following
1) take a loss to provide affordable housing 2) build expensive properties 3) reduce the cost of properties
But if the government builds houses, it will doubtless create a surplus of ugly, crap ones and a shortage of good ones, as it usually does when it tries to produce anything.
Oligopolistic developers aren't much better either.
Self-build is the clear, screaming, obvious answer, as in most of continental Europe, e.g. Austria where 80% of new houses are self-built, compared to 10% in the UK, half of which are in Northern Ireland.
That way the person who builds the thing has at least some interest in its quality and visual appeal
The problem as always is our permission system.
People should not need consent to self build within the law on their own land.
There seems to be some new push on social media where Trump and supporters are spinning the bullshit about the US paying for NATO and carrying Europe.
It’s sort of funny they should be doing this on Independence Day when that really came about because they didn’t want to pay taxes to help cover their defence and the costs of the French Indian War. Maybe MaGAs could try and think about that.
My lifelong affection for America is on pause.
The thing is, is that it has been US policy to make us all dependent on US defence. They've been pushing the defence drugs for 80 years. And if you buy your defence from the US, then clearly they're good, so why not buy your computers too.
I think that Trump has broken that little bubble.
Yes I suppose so. It's as if we allowed a single company to dominate key sectors of the economy, because they were bigger and better than the competition, and now they have suddenly been taken over by the Kray Twins.
"If he's remembered at all it will be for him deciding that instead of dealing with bad things in the country, he would instead arrest the people who didn't like the bad things that were happening in the country"
Not sure if Douglas Murray is coming out in support of Palestine Action, of people who incite arson endangering life, of those who actually committed such crimes or what. A bit of a mystery.
I am very impressed by @interested's attempts to mangle the basic economics of supply and demand.
A land value tax would almost certainly lower rents, because it would discourage properties from being left empty.
O level economics if costs go up the supply curve shifts and prices rise.it’s you that is mangling the basic laws of economics
Shall we ask Claude?
"What would the likely impact on rents in the UK be of the introduction of a land value tax?"
To which Claude responded:
"Short answer: standard economic theory predicts that a well-designed land value tax (LVT) shouldn't raise rents at all, and in fact could push them down slightly.
The core theoretical argument Land differs from produced goods (like buildings) because its supply is fixed — you can't create more of it in response to price signals. Standard tax incidence theory says the burden of a tax falls on the side of the market that's least able to adjust quantity. Since landowners can't reduce the supply of land in response to a tax, they can't pass the cost on to tenants through higher rents. The tax gets "capitalized" into a lower land value instead — the landowner absorbs it, roughly one-for-one, through a drop in what the land is worth. This is different from a tax on buildings or improvements (like most property taxes), where supply can shrink over time (less construction, less maintenance), which does tend to get partly passed through to renters. Why it might even push rents down If an LVT replaces less efficient taxes (like taxes on labor, capital, or construction), it removes the disincentive to build. A tax on land value doesn't penalize you for adding a building — unlike a conventional property tax, which taxes the improvement too. So LVT can encourage more intensive use of land (more housing built on it), which increases housing supply and puts downward pressure on rents over time. There's also an argument that LVT discourages land speculation and "warehousing" of vacant or underused sites, since holding unproductive land becomes costlier — again nudging more land into productive (housing) use."
Now, it could be that Claude is mangling basic economics.
Or it could be that you're simply wrong.
Must admit I am surprised. Still seems counter intuitive to me. Why would all landlords accept lower returns and still stay in the market. After all we have seen them exit the market because of the new regulations.
Probably because the return on investment is greater that they could get elsewhere.
Say you can let a £250,000 flat for £1,000 a month. That's a 10% return, and the property appreciates. What else would you do with that quarter of a million?
But you have agents fees, maintenance, void periods, electric and gas regulations to complied with, service charges, ground rents, licensing costs, bad debts. You would be doing well to get anywhere near a 5% yield. Yield on Uk equities or gilts look attractive with less hassle and risk.
That's fine though. There's something wrong if you can coin it (good yield plus capital gains) simply by buying and renting out property. That those times seem to be over in many places in the UK is not a mourning matter. It should be an activity where a 'solid but no more' return is possible so long as you do it to a professional standard and always remember that your investment is somebody's home.
Don’t disagree
Well that's popped my balloon. I'll stop chuntering on then.
What a super exchange 🙂
The basic problem is that the cost of creating properties has skyrocketed. We have hit an affordability ceiling in a number of areas. Which has shut down further construction.
Government can build, but must then do one of the following
1) take a loss to provide affordable housing 2) build expensive properties 3) reduce the cost of properties
You're not wrong about the cost of construction - in London we have the Community Infrastructure Levy, Carbon Offset Levy and Section 106 and I suspect others.
The argument is if you add more dwellings into existing communities that puts pressure on both kinds of infrastructure - the "hard", such as pipes, sewage, cables, wires etc and the "soft" -medical and transport capacities, schools and perhaps crime. Existing residents want some kind of if not guarantee then reassurance they won't be the losers if thousands of new dwellings are added to their area.
You can turn a deaf ear as many on here do and call it "NIMBY" but the truth is settled communities are concerned by the possible addition of considerable numbers of new properties without their consent.
So what?
Its not their land and not their place.
People in the country deserve somewhere to live. Whether others like it or not.
Good evening all (does Dixon of Dock Green Scissor-Squat).
A fine afternoon visiting the 90 year old Godmother in Sheffield, including a strange, baroque diversion as the A617 is closed, a big fish n chips n peas for £10.50 - not the most inexpensive but very, very good, a visit to the street where my mum lived in the 1940s-1960s, and a feeling that Sheffield has let its transport arrangements degrade over time. I think decreased prioritisation of buses is a serious question, and that there is a problem with the tram network.
And my Godmother reports a friend of the family who had the wrong leg amputated a couple of weeks ago. She is very compos mentis, and still plays Scrabble every week, but I am really not sure about that one without a horse's mouth account.
And watching the cricket whilst talking of horses, I really did think at first glance that there was a Test cricketer called Horseshit, which is so necessary that he should change his name accordingly.
I am very impressed by @interested's attempts to mangle the basic economics of supply and demand.
A land value tax would almost certainly lower rents, because it would discourage properties from being left empty.
O level economics if costs go up the supply curve shifts and prices rise.it’s you that is mangling the basic laws of economics
Shall we ask Claude?
"What would the likely impact on rents in the UK be of the introduction of a land value tax?"
To which Claude responded:
"Short answer: standard economic theory predicts that a well-designed land value tax (LVT) shouldn't raise rents at all, and in fact could push them down slightly.
The core theoretical argument Land differs from produced goods (like buildings) because its supply is fixed — you can't create more of it in response to price signals. Standard tax incidence theory says the burden of a tax falls on the side of the market that's least able to adjust quantity. Since landowners can't reduce the supply of land in response to a tax, they can't pass the cost on to tenants through higher rents. The tax gets "capitalized" into a lower land value instead — the landowner absorbs it, roughly one-for-one, through a drop in what the land is worth. This is different from a tax on buildings or improvements (like most property taxes), where supply can shrink over time (less construction, less maintenance), which does tend to get partly passed through to renters. Why it might even push rents down If an LVT replaces less efficient taxes (like taxes on labor, capital, or construction), it removes the disincentive to build. A tax on land value doesn't penalize you for adding a building — unlike a conventional property tax, which taxes the improvement too. So LVT can encourage more intensive use of land (more housing built on it), which increases housing supply and puts downward pressure on rents over time. There's also an argument that LVT discourages land speculation and "warehousing" of vacant or underused sites, since holding unproductive land becomes costlier — again nudging more land into productive (housing) use."
Now, it could be that Claude is mangling basic economics.
Or it could be that you're simply wrong.
Must admit I am surprised. Still seems counter intuitive to me. Why would all landlords accept lower returns and still stay in the market. After all we have seen them exit the market because of the new regulations.
Probably because the return on investment is greater that they could get elsewhere.
Say you can let a £250,000 flat for £1,000 a month. That's a 10% return, and the property appreciates. What else would you do with that quarter of a million?
But you have agents fees, maintenance, void periods, electric and gas regulations to complied with, service charges, ground rents, licensing costs, bad debts. You would be doing well to get anywhere near a 5% yield. Yield on Uk equities or gilts look attractive with less hassle and risk.
House prices will adjust (i.e. fall) to ensure that you get the same ultimate yield.
Yes I think London house prices have a long way to fall in real terms. They haven't adapted to 5% risk-free yields and reduced net migration.
I suspect they get there the hidden way via 30% cumulative inflation over a decade rather than the sticker prices moving much.
They're down 20% or so (real terms) in the last 4 years.
I am very impressed by @interested's attempts to mangle the basic economics of supply and demand.
A land value tax would almost certainly lower rents, because it would discourage properties from being left empty.
O level economics if costs go up the supply curve shifts and prices rise.it’s you that is mangling the basic laws of economics
Shall we ask Claude?
"What would the likely impact on rents in the UK be of the introduction of a land value tax?"
To which Claude responded:
"Short answer: standard economic theory predicts that a well-designed land value tax (LVT) shouldn't raise rents at all, and in fact could push them down slightly.
The core theoretical argument Land differs from produced goods (like buildings) because its supply is fixed — you can't create more of it in response to price signals. Standard tax incidence theory says the burden of a tax falls on the side of the market that's least able to adjust quantity. Since landowners can't reduce the supply of land in response to a tax, they can't pass the cost on to tenants through higher rents. The tax gets "capitalized" into a lower land value instead — the landowner absorbs it, roughly one-for-one, through a drop in what the land is worth. This is different from a tax on buildings or improvements (like most property taxes), where supply can shrink over time (less construction, less maintenance), which does tend to get partly passed through to renters. Why it might even push rents down If an LVT replaces less efficient taxes (like taxes on labor, capital, or construction), it removes the disincentive to build. A tax on land value doesn't penalize you for adding a building — unlike a conventional property tax, which taxes the improvement too. So LVT can encourage more intensive use of land (more housing built on it), which increases housing supply and puts downward pressure on rents over time. There's also an argument that LVT discourages land speculation and "warehousing" of vacant or underused sites, since holding unproductive land becomes costlier — again nudging more land into productive (housing) use."
Now, it could be that Claude is mangling basic economics.
Or it could be that you're simply wrong.
Must admit I am surprised. Still seems counter intuitive to me. Why would all landlords accept lower returns and still stay in the market. After all we have seen them exit the market because of the new regulations.
Probably because the return on investment is greater that they could get elsewhere.
Say you can let a £250,000 flat for £1,000 a month. That's a 10% return, and the property appreciates. What else would you do with that quarter of a million?
But you have agents fees, maintenance, void periods, electric and gas regulations to complied with, service charges, ground rents, licensing costs, bad debts. You would be doing well to get anywhere near a 5% yield. Yield on Uk equities or gilts look attractive with less hassle and risk.
That's fine though. There's something wrong if you can coin it (good yield plus capital gains) simply by buying and renting out property. That those times seem to be over in many places in the UK is not a mourning matter. It should be an activity where a 'solid but no more' return is possible so long as you do it to a professional standard and always remember that your investment is somebody's home.
Don’t disagree
Well that's popped my balloon. I'll stop chuntering on then.
What a super exchange 🙂
The basic problem is that the cost of creating properties has skyrocketed. We have hit an affordability ceiling in a number of areas. Which has shut down further construction.
Government can build, but must then do one of the following
1) take a loss to provide affordable housing 2) build expensive properties 3) reduce the cost of properties
But if the government builds houses, it will doubtless create a surplus of ugly, crap ones and a shortage of good ones, as it usually does when it tries to produce anything.
Oligopolistic developers aren't much better either.
Self-build is the clear, screaming, obvious answer, as in most of continental Europe, e.g. Austria where 80% of new houses are self-built, compared to 10% in the UK, half of which are in Northern Ireland.
That way the person who builds the thing has at least some interest in its quality and visual appeal
The problem as always is our permission system.
People should not need consent to self build within the law on their own land.
No, and in New Zealand, once you have bought the land (section or sub-division), it'syours to do with as you see fit.
You don't have to build - you can leave it until you are ready to build but normally most people are quick to go in and build what will fit on their piece of land which does a lot to limit what you can do.
There seems to be some new push on social media where Trump and supporters are spinning the bullshit about the US paying for NATO and carrying Europe.
It’s sort of funny they should be doing this on Independence Day when that really came about because they didn’t want to pay taxes to help cover their defence and the costs of the French Indian War. Maybe MaGAs could try and think about that.
My lifelong affection for America is on pause.
The thing is, is that it has been US policy to make us all dependent on US defence. They've been pushing the defence drugs for 80 years. And if you buy your defence from the US, then clearly they're good, so why not buy your computers too.
I think that Trump has broken that little bubble.
Yes I suppose so. It's as if we allowed a single company to dominate key sectors of the economy, because they were bigger and better than the competition, and now they have suddenly been taken over by the Kray Twins.
It's quite clear that the US has bigged itself up as big brother within NATO at least in part to make its defence industry the world leader.
I think there's a similar story to be told in other areas, but I really don't know the facts.
I am very impressed by @interested's attempts to mangle the basic economics of supply and demand.
A land value tax would almost certainly lower rents, because it would discourage properties from being left empty.
O level economics if costs go up the supply curve shifts and prices rise.it’s you that is mangling the basic laws of economics
Shall we ask Claude?
"What would the likely impact on rents in the UK be of the introduction of a land value tax?"
To which Claude responded:
"Short answer: standard economic theory predicts that a well-designed land value tax (LVT) shouldn't raise rents at all, and in fact could push them down slightly.
The core theoretical argument Land differs from produced goods (like buildings) because its supply is fixed — you can't create more of it in response to price signals. Standard tax incidence theory says the burden of a tax falls on the side of the market that's least able to adjust quantity. Since landowners can't reduce the supply of land in response to a tax, they can't pass the cost on to tenants through higher rents. The tax gets "capitalized" into a lower land value instead — the landowner absorbs it, roughly one-for-one, through a drop in what the land is worth. This is different from a tax on buildings or improvements (like most property taxes), where supply can shrink over time (less construction, less maintenance), which does tend to get partly passed through to renters. Why it might even push rents down If an LVT replaces less efficient taxes (like taxes on labor, capital, or construction), it removes the disincentive to build. A tax on land value doesn't penalize you for adding a building — unlike a conventional property tax, which taxes the improvement too. So LVT can encourage more intensive use of land (more housing built on it), which increases housing supply and puts downward pressure on rents over time. There's also an argument that LVT discourages land speculation and "warehousing" of vacant or underused sites, since holding unproductive land becomes costlier — again nudging more land into productive (housing) use."
Now, it could be that Claude is mangling basic economics.
Or it could be that you're simply wrong.
Must admit I am surprised. Still seems counter intuitive to me. Why would all landlords accept lower returns and still stay in the market. After all we have seen them exit the market because of the new regulations.
Probably because the return on investment is greater that they could get elsewhere.
Say you can let a £250,000 flat for £1,000 a month. That's a 10% return, and the property appreciates. What else would you do with that quarter of a million?
But you have agents fees, maintenance, void periods, electric and gas regulations to complied with, service charges, ground rents, licensing costs, bad debts. You would be doing well to get anywhere near a 5% yield. Yield on Uk equities or gilts look attractive with less hassle and risk.
That's fine though. There's something wrong if you can coin it (good yield plus capital gains) simply by buying and renting out property. That those times seem to be over in many places in the UK is not a mourning matter. It should be an activity where a 'solid but no more' return is possible so long as you do it to a professional standard and always remember that your investment is somebody's home.
Don’t disagree
Well that's popped my balloon. I'll stop chuntering on then.
What a super exchange 🙂
The basic problem is that the cost of creating properties has skyrocketed. We have hit an affordability ceiling in a number of areas. Which has shut down further construction.
Government can build, but must then do one of the following
1) take a loss to provide affordable housing 2) build expensive properties 3) reduce the cost of properties
Yes, high build costs from one end, affordability from the other. A big squeeze.
I would like to see a mix of 1 and 3. And 3 mitigates 1 of course.
Reducing 3 would mean moving to effective regulation, not ever increasing piles of paper that aren’t read.
Are you really prepared for the Neon Fascist Capitalistic Anarchic Hell Hole, where replacing one window only costs £3,000 (say) rather than £18,000? Where you don’t need two separate consultants to write reports on the awesomeness of the window? Reports that will never be read. The window, of course, will never be inspected.
I am very impressed by @interested's attempts to mangle the basic economics of supply and demand.
A land value tax would almost certainly lower rents, because it would discourage properties from being left empty.
O level economics if costs go up the supply curve shifts and prices rise.it’s you that is mangling the basic laws of economics
Shall we ask Claude?
"What would the likely impact on rents in the UK be of the introduction of a land value tax?"
To which Claude responded:
"Short answer: standard economic theory predicts that a well-designed land value tax (LVT) shouldn't raise rents at all, and in fact could push them down slightly.
The core theoretical argument Land differs from produced goods (like buildings) because its supply is fixed — you can't create more of it in response to price signals. Standard tax incidence theory says the burden of a tax falls on the side of the market that's least able to adjust quantity. Since landowners can't reduce the supply of land in response to a tax, they can't pass the cost on to tenants through higher rents. The tax gets "capitalized" into a lower land value instead — the landowner absorbs it, roughly one-for-one, through a drop in what the land is worth. This is different from a tax on buildings or improvements (like most property taxes), where supply can shrink over time (less construction, less maintenance), which does tend to get partly passed through to renters. Why it might even push rents down If an LVT replaces less efficient taxes (like taxes on labor, capital, or construction), it removes the disincentive to build. A tax on land value doesn't penalize you for adding a building — unlike a conventional property tax, which taxes the improvement too. So LVT can encourage more intensive use of land (more housing built on it), which increases housing supply and puts downward pressure on rents over time. There's also an argument that LVT discourages land speculation and "warehousing" of vacant or underused sites, since holding unproductive land becomes costlier — again nudging more land into productive (housing) use."
Now, it could be that Claude is mangling basic economics.
Or it could be that you're simply wrong.
two points on LVT: Most land in England is agricultural and is untaxed WRT property taxes. LVT might see a rush to exempted use. Secondly, LVT encourages financial maximising of land. But the fun and gaiety of nations relies on there being uses of land which don't maximise commercial potential. Lords or The Oval might do better as skyscrapers, but London would be less fun. Ditto Westminster Abbey. LVT can encourage a Gradgrind approach to things.
I am very impressed by @interested's attempts to mangle the basic economics of supply and demand.
A land value tax would almost certainly lower rents, because it would discourage properties from being left empty.
O level economics if costs go up the supply curve shifts and prices rise.it’s you that is mangling the basic laws of economics
Shall we ask Claude?
"What would the likely impact on rents in the UK be of the introduction of a land value tax?"
To which Claude responded:
"Short answer: standard economic theory predicts that a well-designed land value tax (LVT) shouldn't raise rents at all, and in fact could push them down slightly.
The core theoretical argument Land differs from produced goods (like buildings) because its supply is fixed — you can't create more of it in response to price signals. Standard tax incidence theory says the burden of a tax falls on the side of the market that's least able to adjust quantity. Since landowners can't reduce the supply of land in response to a tax, they can't pass the cost on to tenants through higher rents. The tax gets "capitalized" into a lower land value instead — the landowner absorbs it, roughly one-for-one, through a drop in what the land is worth. This is different from a tax on buildings or improvements (like most property taxes), where supply can shrink over time (less construction, less maintenance), which does tend to get partly passed through to renters. Why it might even push rents down If an LVT replaces less efficient taxes (like taxes on labor, capital, or construction), it removes the disincentive to build. A tax on land value doesn't penalize you for adding a building — unlike a conventional property tax, which taxes the improvement too. So LVT can encourage more intensive use of land (more housing built on it), which increases housing supply and puts downward pressure on rents over time. There's also an argument that LVT discourages land speculation and "warehousing" of vacant or underused sites, since holding unproductive land becomes costlier — again nudging more land into productive (housing) use."
Now, it could be that Claude is mangling basic economics.
Or it could be that you're simply wrong.
Must admit I am surprised. Still seems counter intuitive to me. Why would all landlords accept lower returns and still stay in the market. After all we have seen them exit the market because of the new regulations.
Probably because the return on investment is greater that they could get elsewhere.
Say you can let a £250,000 flat for £1,000 a month. That's a 10% return, and the property appreciates. What else would you do with that quarter of a million?
But you have agents fees, maintenance, void periods, electric and gas regulations to complied with, service charges, ground rents, licensing costs, bad debts. You would be doing well to get anywhere near a 5% yield. Yield on Uk equities or gilts look attractive with less hassle and risk.
That's fine though. There's something wrong if you can coin it (good yield plus capital gains) simply by buying and renting out property. That those times seem to be over in many places in the UK is not a mourning matter. It should be an activity where a 'solid but no more' return is possible so long as you do it to a professional standard and always remember that your investment is somebody's home.
Don’t disagree
Well that's popped my balloon. I'll stop chuntering on then.
What a super exchange 🙂
The basic problem is that the cost of creating properties has skyrocketed. We have hit an affordability ceiling in a number of areas. Which has shut down further construction.
Government can build, but must then do one of the following
1) take a loss to provide affordable housing 2) build expensive properties 3) reduce the cost of properties
You're not wrong about the cost of construction - in London we have the Community Infrastructure Levy, Carbon Offset Levy and Section 106 and I suspect others.
The argument is if you add more dwellings into existing communities that puts pressure on both kinds of infrastructure - the "hard", such as pipes, sewage, cables, wires etc and the "soft" -medical and transport capacities, schools and perhaps crime. Existing residents want some kind of if not guarantee then reassurance they won't be the losers if thousands of new dwellings are added to their area.
You can turn a deaf ear as many on here do and call it "NIMBY" but the truth is settled communities are concerned by the possible addition of considerable numbers of new properties without their consent.
So what?
Its not their land and not their place.
People in the country deserve somewhere to live. Whether others like it or not.
That's not how people see it even if you think they are wrong.
There's a plan to put 700 dwellings on a brownfield site near me - now, I'm not wholly opposed but I'm entitled to ask even if you don't think it's "my place" how that many new homes and people will impact on the existing community. An example, there will be little or no parking provided but as we know people will still come with cars and will try to find places to park and that will cause issues with existing residents.
I realise there's a national need to provide housing - I think at the moment there are a glut of homes trying to be sold but even at the slightly reduced prices on offer, there aren't many takers and to look at the other side of the coin, for a lot of people their home is their principal asset (rightly or wrongly). They won't be happy to see that depreciate by 10-20% so you may well see a lot of people simply holding on and waiting for the market to turn and what is the point for developers if they can't realise construction costs at the end of the process?
The 1-0 defeat to Morocco for Scotland is looking less bad now. We gave them a real game. With them and Brazil we had a hell of a group. But that's the price you pay for a low ranking.
I am very impressed by @interested's attempts to mangle the basic economics of supply and demand.
A land value tax would almost certainly lower rents, because it would discourage properties from being left empty.
O level economics if costs go up the supply curve shifts and prices rise.it’s you that is mangling the basic laws of economics
Shall we ask Claude?
"What would the likely impact on rents in the UK be of the introduction of a land value tax?"
To which Claude responded:
"Short answer: standard economic theory predicts that a well-designed land value tax (LVT) shouldn't raise rents at all, and in fact could push them down slightly.
The core theoretical argument Land differs from produced goods (like buildings) because its supply is fixed — you can't create more of it in response to price signals. Standard tax incidence theory says the burden of a tax falls on the side of the market that's least able to adjust quantity. Since landowners can't reduce the supply of land in response to a tax, they can't pass the cost on to tenants through higher rents. The tax gets "capitalized" into a lower land value instead — the landowner absorbs it, roughly one-for-one, through a drop in what the land is worth. This is different from a tax on buildings or improvements (like most property taxes), where supply can shrink over time (less construction, less maintenance), which does tend to get partly passed through to renters. Why it might even push rents down If an LVT replaces less efficient taxes (like taxes on labor, capital, or construction), it removes the disincentive to build. A tax on land value doesn't penalize you for adding a building — unlike a conventional property tax, which taxes the improvement too. So LVT can encourage more intensive use of land (more housing built on it), which increases housing supply and puts downward pressure on rents over time. There's also an argument that LVT discourages land speculation and "warehousing" of vacant or underused sites, since holding unproductive land becomes costlier — again nudging more land into productive (housing) use."
Now, it could be that Claude is mangling basic economics.
Or it could be that you're simply wrong.
Must admit I am surprised. Still seems counter intuitive to me. Why would all landlords accept lower returns and still stay in the market. After all we have seen them exit the market because of the new regulations.
Probably because the return on investment is greater that they could get elsewhere.
Say you can let a £250,000 flat for £1,000 a month. That's a 10% return, and the property appreciates. What else would you do with that quarter of a million?
But you have agents fees, maintenance, void periods, electric and gas regulations to complied with, service charges, ground rents, licensing costs, bad debts. You would be doing well to get anywhere near a 5% yield. Yield on Uk equities or gilts look attractive with less hassle and risk.
That's fine though. There's something wrong if you can coin it (good yield plus capital gains) simply by buying and renting out property. That those times seem to be over in many places in the UK is not a mourning matter. It should be an activity where a 'solid but no more' return is possible so long as you do it to a professional standard and always remember that your investment is somebody's home.
Don’t disagree
Well that's popped my balloon. I'll stop chuntering on then.
What a super exchange 🙂
The basic problem is that the cost of creating properties has skyrocketed. We have hit an affordability ceiling in a number of areas. Which has shut down further construction.
Government can build, but must then do one of the following
1) take a loss to provide affordable housing 2) build expensive properties 3) reduce the cost of properties
Yes, high build costs from one end, affordability from the other. A big squeeze.
I would like to see a mix of 1 and 3. And 3 mitigates 1 of course.
Reducing 3 would mean moving to effective regulation, not ever increasing piles of paper that aren’t read.
Are you really prepared for the Neon Fascist Capitalistic Anarchic Hell Hole, where replacing one window only costs £3,000 (say) rather than £18,000? Where you don’t need two separate consultants to write reports on the awesomeness of the window? Reports that will never be read. The window, of course, will never be inspected.
I think we've done this, Malmesbury. A few times. I am no supporter of excessive bureaucracy around windows. Cut through all that nonsense. Build a ton of social housing. That's where I am.
Kiss and tell, and I suppose this account is as kind as it can be, is always repellent. Neither a gentleman nor a lady ever tells, not do they go public about what may be intensely private to others and the family.
There seems to be some new push on social media where Trump and supporters are spinning the bullshit about the US paying for NATO and carrying Europe.
It’s sort of funny they should be doing this on Independence Day when that really came about because they didn’t want to pay taxes to help cover their defence and the costs of the French Indian War. Maybe MaGAs could try and think about that.
My lifelong affection for America is on pause.
The thing is, is that it has been US policy to make us all dependent on US defence. They've been pushing the defence drugs for 80 years. And if you buy your defence from the US, then clearly they're good, so why not buy your computers too.
I think that Trump has broken that little bubble.
Yes I suppose so. It's as if we allowed a single company to dominate key sectors of the economy, because they were bigger and better than the competition, and now they have suddenly been taken over by the Kray Twins.
It's quite clear that the US has bigged itself up as big brother within NATO at least in part to make its defence industry the world leader.
I think there's a similar story to be told in other areas, but I really don't know the facts.
A fair bet, I think, that those facts if we discovered them would support that opinion.
"If he's remembered at all it will be for him deciding that instead of dealing with bad things in the country, he would instead arrest the people who didn't like the bad things that were happening in the country"
Not sure if Douglas Murray is coming out in support of Palestine Action, of people who incite arson endangering life, of those who actually committed such crimes or what. A bit of a mystery.
Revealed: Nigel Farage secretly funded by convicted criminal
The Reform UK leader did not declare benefits including staff, security and housing by crypto-gambler George Cottrell, our investigation reveals
...Farage appears to have broken MPs’ rules by failing to declare that Cottrell provided funding for his operation in the year before his election.
We can also reveal that:
• The Reform leader received “in kind” benefits ranging from his back office to his private security, staff, transport and accommodation. • Cottrell recruited and paid three staff to transform Farage’s social media presence, producing content on immigration, human rights law and political correctness, and that promoted Reform. • Cottrell has been involved in a crypto-gambling platform implicated in illegal betting in the UK. • Two men — a friend of Cottrell’s and a Reform employee — owned UK companies which allowed illicit payments originally from or destined for the platform, which did not have a legally required UK licence. • Since the election Cottrell has let Farage use a five-storey house he rents on a street near Buckingham Palace. His lawyer said: “As a close friend, our client did, and does, allow Mr Farage to stay in our client’s rental property.” • The convict has applied for a presidential pardon in the US, where he pleaded guilty to wire fraud. • Cottrell received an £8.5 million Chelsea property from the billionaire Reform treasurer Nick Candy in the last year. Land Registry documents say the price paid was zero. Candy said Cottrell paid him by buying shares in an offshore Guernsey company but would not specify the value of the transaction.
The code of conduct says MPs must disclose any benefit which “might reasonably be thought by others to influence [their] actions or words” on their register of interests. Its “overall aim” is to protect democracy by upholding the highest levels of transparency.
It says MPs must declare any gifts, benefits and hospitality” received in the year preceding their election and which relate “in any way” to their “political activities”. The exception is “purely personal” gifts, such as presents from family. Even then, the code says “both the possible motive of the giver and the use [of the gift] should be considered”, clarifying: “If there is any doubt, the benefit should be registered.”
I am very impressed by @interested's attempts to mangle the basic economics of supply and demand.
A land value tax would almost certainly lower rents, because it would discourage properties from being left empty.
O level economics if costs go up the supply curve shifts and prices rise.it’s you that is mangling the basic laws of economics
Shall we ask Claude?
"What would the likely impact on rents in the UK be of the introduction of a land value tax?"
To which Claude responded:
"Short answer: standard economic theory predicts that a well-designed land value tax (LVT) shouldn't raise rents at all, and in fact could push them down slightly.
The core theoretical argument Land differs from produced goods (like buildings) because its supply is fixed — you can't create more of it in response to price signals. Standard tax incidence theory says the burden of a tax falls on the side of the market that's least able to adjust quantity. Since landowners can't reduce the supply of land in response to a tax, they can't pass the cost on to tenants through higher rents. The tax gets "capitalized" into a lower land value instead — the landowner absorbs it, roughly one-for-one, through a drop in what the land is worth. This is different from a tax on buildings or improvements (like most property taxes), where supply can shrink over time (less construction, less maintenance), which does tend to get partly passed through to renters. Why it might even push rents down If an LVT replaces less efficient taxes (like taxes on labor, capital, or construction), it removes the disincentive to build. A tax on land value doesn't penalize you for adding a building — unlike a conventional property tax, which taxes the improvement too. So LVT can encourage more intensive use of land (more housing built on it), which increases housing supply and puts downward pressure on rents over time. There's also an argument that LVT discourages land speculation and "warehousing" of vacant or underused sites, since holding unproductive land becomes costlier — again nudging more land into productive (housing) use."
Now, it could be that Claude is mangling basic economics.
Or it could be that you're simply wrong.
Must admit I am surprised. Still seems counter intuitive to me. Why would all landlords accept lower returns and still stay in the market. After all we have seen them exit the market because of the new regulations.
Probably because the return on investment is greater that they could get elsewhere.
Say you can let a £250,000 flat for £1,000 a month. That's a 10% return, and the property appreciates. What else would you do with that quarter of a million?
But you have agents fees, maintenance, void periods, electric and gas regulations to complied with, service charges, ground rents, licensing costs, bad debts. You would be doing well to get anywhere near a 5% yield. Yield on Uk equities or gilts look attractive with less hassle and risk.
That's fine though. There's something wrong if you can coin it (good yield plus capital gains) simply by buying and renting out property. That those times seem to be over in many places in the UK is not a mourning matter. It should be an activity where a 'solid but no more' return is possible so long as you do it to a professional standard and always remember that your investment is somebody's home.
Don’t disagree
Well that's popped my balloon. I'll stop chuntering on then.
What a super exchange 🙂
The basic problem is that the cost of creating properties has skyrocketed. We have hit an affordability ceiling in a number of areas. Which has shut down further construction.
Government can build, but must then do one of the following
1) take a loss to provide affordable housing 2) build expensive properties 3) reduce the cost of properties
You're not wrong about the cost of construction - in London we have the Community Infrastructure Levy, Carbon Offset Levy and Section 106 and I suspect others.
The argument is if you add more dwellings into existing communities that puts pressure on both kinds of infrastructure - the "hard", such as pipes, sewage, cables, wires etc and the "soft" -medical and transport capacities, schools and perhaps crime. Existing residents want some kind of if not guarantee then reassurance they won't be the losers if thousands of new dwellings are added to their area.
You can turn a deaf ear as many on here do and call it "NIMBY" but the truth is settled communities are concerned by the possible addition of considerable numbers of new properties without their consent.
So what?
Its not their land and not their place.
People in the country deserve somewhere to live. Whether others like it or not.
That's not how people see it even if you think they are wrong.
There's a plan to put 700 dwellings on a brownfield site near me - now, I'm not wholly opposed but I'm entitled to ask even if you don't think it's "my place" how that many new homes and people will impact on the existing community. An example, there will be little or no parking provided but as we know people will still come with cars and will try to find places to park and that will cause issues with existing residents.
I realise there's a national need to provide housing - I think at the moment there are a glut of homes trying to be sold but even at the slightly reduced prices on offer, there aren't many takers and to look at the other side of the coin, for a lot of people their home is their principal asset (rightly or wrongly). They won't be happy to see that depreciate by 10-20% so you may well see a lot of people simply holding on and waiting for the market to turn and what is the point for developers if they can't realise construction costs at the end of the process?
I don't often side with Bart when it comes to planning and housing but surely if it is a brownfield site it should be the perfect place for building. And the issue of parking is not a reason to object to the house building but a reason to object to whatever restrictions the council have put in place to prevent parking. I know from Swindon the council has been on a campaign to reduce car usage by making it almost impossible to own a car in many estates. It is an idiotic way to do things and all it has done is to move the problem to neighbouring areas.
I am very impressed by @interested's attempts to mangle the basic economics of supply and demand.
A land value tax would almost certainly lower rents, because it would discourage properties from being left empty.
O level economics if costs go up the supply curve shifts and prices rise.it’s you that is mangling the basic laws of economics
Shall we ask Claude?
"What would the likely impact on rents in the UK be of the introduction of a land value tax?"
To which Claude responded:
"Short answer: standard economic theory predicts that a well-designed land value tax (LVT) shouldn't raise rents at all, and in fact could push them down slightly.
The core theoretical argument Land differs from produced goods (like buildings) because its supply is fixed — you can't create more of it in response to price signals. Standard tax incidence theory says the burden of a tax falls on the side of the market that's least able to adjust quantity. Since landowners can't reduce the supply of land in response to a tax, they can't pass the cost on to tenants through higher rents. The tax gets "capitalized" into a lower land value instead — the landowner absorbs it, roughly one-for-one, through a drop in what the land is worth. This is different from a tax on buildings or improvements (like most property taxes), where supply can shrink over time (less construction, less maintenance), which does tend to get partly passed through to renters. Why it might even push rents down If an LVT replaces less efficient taxes (like taxes on labor, capital, or construction), it removes the disincentive to build. A tax on land value doesn't penalize you for adding a building — unlike a conventional property tax, which taxes the improvement too. So LVT can encourage more intensive use of land (more housing built on it), which increases housing supply and puts downward pressure on rents over time. There's also an argument that LVT discourages land speculation and "warehousing" of vacant or underused sites, since holding unproductive land becomes costlier — again nudging more land into productive (housing) use."
Now, it could be that Claude is mangling basic economics.
Or it could be that you're simply wrong.
Must admit I am surprised. Still seems counter intuitive to me. Why would all landlords accept lower returns and still stay in the market. After all we have seen them exit the market because of the new regulations.
Probably because the return on investment is greater that they could get elsewhere.
Say you can let a £250,000 flat for £1,000 a month. That's a 10% return, and the property appreciates. What else would you do with that quarter of a million?
But you have agents fees, maintenance, void periods, electric and gas regulations to complied with, service charges, ground rents, licensing costs, bad debts. You would be doing well to get anywhere near a 5% yield. Yield on Uk equities or gilts look attractive with less hassle and risk.
That's fine though. There's something wrong if you can coin it (good yield plus capital gains) simply by buying and renting out property. That those times seem to be over in many places in the UK is not a mourning matter. It should be an activity where a 'solid but no more' return is possible so long as you do it to a professional standard and always remember that your investment is somebody's home.
Don’t disagree
Well that's popped my balloon. I'll stop chuntering on then.
What a super exchange 🙂
The basic problem is that the cost of creating properties has skyrocketed. We have hit an affordability ceiling in a number of areas. Which has shut down further construction.
Government can build, but must then do one of the following
1) take a loss to provide affordable housing 2) build expensive properties 3) reduce the cost of properties
Yes, high build costs from one end, affordability from the other. A big squeeze.
I would like to see a mix of 1 and 3. And 3 mitigates 1 of course.
Reducing 3 would mean moving to effective regulation, not ever increasing piles of paper that aren’t read.
Are you really prepared for the Neon Fascist Capitalistic Anarchic Hell Hole, where replacing one window only costs £3,000 (say) rather than £18,000? Where you don’t need two separate consultants to write reports on the awesomeness of the window? Reports that will never be read. The window, of course, will never be inspected.
I think we've done this, Malmesbury. A few times. I am no supporter of excessive bureaucracy around windows. Cut through all that nonsense. Build a ton of social housing. That's where I am.
You are talking about destroying a whole industries - offshoots of the Enquiry Industrial Complex. We are talking whole sectors. Ten of billions of pounds.
Revealed: Nigel Farage secretly funded by convicted criminal
The Reform UK leader did not declare benefits including staff, security and housing by crypto-gambler George Cottrell, our investigation reveals
...Farage appears to have broken MPs’ rules by failing to declare that Cottrell provided funding for his operation in the year before his election.
We can also reveal that:
• The Reform leader received “in kind” benefits ranging from his back office to his private security, staff, transport and accommodation. • Cottrell recruited and paid three staff to transform Farage’s social media presence, producing content on immigration, human rights law and political correctness, and that promoted Reform. • Cottrell has been involved in a crypto-gambling platform implicated in illegal betting in the UK. • Two men — a friend of Cottrell’s and a Reform employee — owned UK companies which allowed illicit payments originally from or destined for the platform, which did not have a legally required UK licence. • Since the election Cottrell has let Farage use a five-storey house he rents on a street near Buckingham Palace. His lawyer said: “As a close friend, our client did, and does, allow Mr Farage to stay in our client’s rental property.” • The convict has applied for a presidential pardon in the US, where he pleaded guilty to wire fraud. • Cottrell received an £8.5 million Chelsea property from the billionaire Reform treasurer Nick Candy in the last year. Land Registry documents say the price paid was zero. Candy said Cottrell paid him by buying shares in an offshore Guernsey company but would not specify the value of the transaction.
The code of conduct says MPs must disclose any benefit which “might reasonably be thought by others to influence [their] actions or words” on their register of interests. Its “overall aim” is to protect democracy by upholding the highest levels of transparency.
It says MPs must declare any gifts, benefits and hospitality” received in the year preceding their election and which relate “in any way” to their “political activities”. The exception is “purely personal” gifts, such as presents from family. Even then, the code says “both the possible motive of the giver and the use [of the gift] should be considered”, clarifying: “If there is any doubt, the benefit should be registered.”
I am very impressed by @interested's attempts to mangle the basic economics of supply and demand.
A land value tax would almost certainly lower rents, because it would discourage properties from being left empty.
O level economics if costs go up the supply curve shifts and prices rise.it’s you that is mangling the basic laws of economics
Shall we ask Claude?
"What would the likely impact on rents in the UK be of the introduction of a land value tax?"
To which Claude responded:
"Short answer: standard economic theory predicts that a well-designed land value tax (LVT) shouldn't raise rents at all, and in fact could push them down slightly.
The core theoretical argument Land differs from produced goods (like buildings) because its supply is fixed — you can't create more of it in response to price signals. Standard tax incidence theory says the burden of a tax falls on the side of the market that's least able to adjust quantity. Since landowners can't reduce the supply of land in response to a tax, they can't pass the cost on to tenants through higher rents. The tax gets "capitalized" into a lower land value instead — the landowner absorbs it, roughly one-for-one, through a drop in what the land is worth. This is different from a tax on buildings or improvements (like most property taxes), where supply can shrink over time (less construction, less maintenance), which does tend to get partly passed through to renters. Why it might even push rents down If an LVT replaces less efficient taxes (like taxes on labor, capital, or construction), it removes the disincentive to build. A tax on land value doesn't penalize you for adding a building — unlike a conventional property tax, which taxes the improvement too. So LVT can encourage more intensive use of land (more housing built on it), which increases housing supply and puts downward pressure on rents over time. There's also an argument that LVT discourages land speculation and "warehousing" of vacant or underused sites, since holding unproductive land becomes costlier — again nudging more land into productive (housing) use."
Now, it could be that Claude is mangling basic economics.
Or it could be that you're simply wrong.
Must admit I am surprised. Still seems counter intuitive to me. Why would all landlords accept lower returns and still stay in the market. After all we have seen them exit the market because of the new regulations.
Probably because the return on investment is greater that they could get elsewhere.
Say you can let a £250,000 flat for £1,000 a month. That's a 10% return, and the property appreciates. What else would you do with that quarter of a million?
But you have agents fees, maintenance, void periods, electric and gas regulations to complied with, service charges, ground rents, licensing costs, bad debts. You would be doing well to get anywhere near a 5% yield. Yield on Uk equities or gilts look attractive with less hassle and risk.
That's fine though. There's something wrong if you can coin it (good yield plus capital gains) simply by buying and renting out property. That those times seem to be over in many places in the UK is not a mourning matter. It should be an activity where a 'solid but no more' return is possible so long as you do it to a professional standard and always remember that your investment is somebody's home.
Don’t disagree
Well that's popped my balloon. I'll stop chuntering on then.
What a super exchange 🙂
The basic problem is that the cost of creating properties has skyrocketed. We have hit an affordability ceiling in a number of areas. Which has shut down further construction.
Government can build, but must then do one of the following
1) take a loss to provide affordable housing 2) build expensive properties 3) reduce the cost of properties
You're not wrong about the cost of construction - in London we have the Community Infrastructure Levy, Carbon Offset Levy and Section 106 and I suspect others.
The argument is if you add more dwellings into existing communities that puts pressure on both kinds of infrastructure - the "hard", such as pipes, sewage, cables, wires etc and the "soft" -medical and transport capacities, schools and perhaps crime. Existing residents want some kind of if not guarantee then reassurance they won't be the losers if thousands of new dwellings are added to their area.
You can turn a deaf ear as many on here do and call it "NIMBY" but the truth is settled communities are concerned by the possible addition of considerable numbers of new properties without their consent.
So what?
Its not their land and not their place.
People in the country deserve somewhere to live. Whether others like it or not.
That's not how people see it even if you think they are wrong.
There's a plan to put 700 dwellings on a brownfield site near me - now, I'm not wholly opposed but I'm entitled to ask even if you don't think it's "my place" how that many new homes and people will impact on the existing community. An example, there will be little or no parking provided but as we know people will still come with cars and will try to find places to park and that will cause issues with existing residents.
I realise there's a national need to provide housing - I think at the moment there are a glut of homes trying to be sold but even at the slightly reduced prices on offer, there aren't many takers and to look at the other side of the coin, for a lot of people their home is their principal asset (rightly or wrongly). They won't be happy to see that depreciate by 10-20% so you may well see a lot of people simply holding on and waiting for the market to turn and what is the point for developers if they can't realise construction costs at the end of the process?
I don't often side with Bart when it comes to planning and housing but surely if it is a brownfield site it should be the perfect place for building. And the issue of parking is not a reason to object to the house building but a reason to object to whatever restrictions the council have put in place to prevent parking. I know from Swindon the council has been on a campaign to reduce car usage by making it almost impossible to own a car in many estates. It is an idiotic way to do things and all it has done is to move the problem to neighbouring areas.
In Cambridge a terraced house was converted into two flats recently. Neither resultant flat is allowed a street parking permit, even though the house had one before. Proper nuts.
I am very impressed by @interested's attempts to mangle the basic economics of supply and demand.
A land value tax would almost certainly lower rents, because it would discourage properties from being left empty.
O level economics if costs go up the supply curve shifts and prices rise.it’s you that is mangling the basic laws of economics
Shall we ask Claude?
"What would the likely impact on rents in the UK be of the introduction of a land value tax?"
To which Claude responded:
"Short answer: standard economic theory predicts that a well-designed land value tax (LVT) shouldn't raise rents at all, and in fact could push them down slightly.
The core theoretical argument Land differs from produced goods (like buildings) because its supply is fixed — you can't create more of it in response to price signals. Standard tax incidence theory says the burden of a tax falls on the side of the market that's least able to adjust quantity. Since landowners can't reduce the supply of land in response to a tax, they can't pass the cost on to tenants through higher rents. The tax gets "capitalized" into a lower land value instead — the landowner absorbs it, roughly one-for-one, through a drop in what the land is worth. This is different from a tax on buildings or improvements (like most property taxes), where supply can shrink over time (less construction, less maintenance), which does tend to get partly passed through to renters. Why it might even push rents down If an LVT replaces less efficient taxes (like taxes on labor, capital, or construction), it removes the disincentive to build. A tax on land value doesn't penalize you for adding a building — unlike a conventional property tax, which taxes the improvement too. So LVT can encourage more intensive use of land (more housing built on it), which increases housing supply and puts downward pressure on rents over time. There's also an argument that LVT discourages land speculation and "warehousing" of vacant or underused sites, since holding unproductive land becomes costlier — again nudging more land into productive (housing) use."
Now, it could be that Claude is mangling basic economics.
Or it could be that you're simply wrong.
Must admit I am surprised. Still seems counter intuitive to me. Why would all landlords accept lower returns and still stay in the market. After all we have seen them exit the market because of the new regulations.
Probably because the return on investment is greater that they could get elsewhere.
Say you can let a £250,000 flat for £1,000 a month. That's a 10% return, and the property appreciates. What else would you do with that quarter of a million?
But you have agents fees, maintenance, void periods, electric and gas regulations to complied with, service charges, ground rents, licensing costs, bad debts. You would be doing well to get anywhere near a 5% yield. Yield on Uk equities or gilts look attractive with less hassle and risk.
That's fine though. There's something wrong if you can coin it (good yield plus capital gains) simply by buying and renting out property. That those times seem to be over in many places in the UK is not a mourning matter. It should be an activity where a 'solid but no more' return is possible so long as you do it to a professional standard and always remember that your investment is somebody's home.
Don’t disagree
Well that's popped my balloon. I'll stop chuntering on then.
What a super exchange 🙂
The basic problem is that the cost of creating properties has skyrocketed. We have hit an affordability ceiling in a number of areas. Which has shut down further construction.
Government can build, but must then do one of the following
1) take a loss to provide affordable housing 2) build expensive properties 3) reduce the cost of properties
You're not wrong about the cost of construction - in London we have the Community Infrastructure Levy, Carbon Offset Levy and Section 106 and I suspect others.
The argument is if you add more dwellings into existing communities that puts pressure on both kinds of infrastructure - the "hard", such as pipes, sewage, cables, wires etc and the "soft" -medical and transport capacities, schools and perhaps crime. Existing residents want some kind of if not guarantee then reassurance they won't be the losers if thousands of new dwellings are added to their area.
You can turn a deaf ear as many on here do and call it "NIMBY" but the truth is settled communities are concerned by the possible addition of considerable numbers of new properties without their consent.
So what?
Its not their land and not their place.
People in the country deserve somewhere to live. Whether others like it or not.
That's not how people see it even if you think they are wrong.
There's a plan to put 700 dwellings on a brownfield site near me - now, I'm not wholly opposed but I'm entitled to ask even if you don't think it's "my place" how that many new homes and people will impact on the existing community. An example, there will be little or no parking provided but as we know people will still come with cars and will try to find places to park and that will cause issues with existing residents.
I realise there's a national need to provide housing - I think at the moment there are a glut of homes trying to be sold but even at the slightly reduced prices on offer, there aren't many takers and to look at the other side of the coin, for a lot of people their home is their principal asset (rightly or wrongly). They won't be happy to see that depreciate by 10-20% so you may well see a lot of people simply holding on and waiting for the market to turn and what is the point for developers if they can't realise construction costs at the end of the process?
Yes, you are entitled to think that - and I am entitled to think you are wrong. That's the benefits of a free society.
Its easy to recognise a need to provide housing, but think it should be provided somewhere else.
There simply is factually not a glut of homes trying to be sold - the proportion of homes that are vacant is incredibly low. People holding on because they want more money than it is worth does not make a glut.
There are many homes being built around here, I live in a new build in a newly developed area, and homes are not left unoccupied for long.
Developers can and do realise construction costs. Indeed well above construction costs - much of the cost of housing is not construction costs, but rather land costs. Land with permission gets an extra 0 on its value over land without. Eliminate that differential and the cost of new construction could come down considerably.
Revealed: Nigel Farage secretly funded by convicted criminal
The Reform UK leader did not declare benefits including staff, security and housing by crypto-gambler George Cottrell, our investigation reveals
...Farage appears to have broken MPs’ rules by failing to declare that Cottrell provided funding for his operation in the year before his election.
We can also reveal that:
• The Reform leader received “in kind” benefits ranging from his back office to his private security, staff, transport and accommodation. • Cottrell recruited and paid three staff to transform Farage’s social media presence, producing content on immigration, human rights law and political correctness, and that promoted Reform. • Cottrell has been involved in a crypto-gambling platform implicated in illegal betting in the UK. • Two men — a friend of Cottrell’s and a Reform employee — owned UK companies which allowed illicit payments originally from or destined for the platform, which did not have a legally required UK licence. • Since the election Cottrell has let Farage use a five-storey house he rents on a street near Buckingham Palace. His lawyer said: “As a close friend, our client did, and does, allow Mr Farage to stay in our client’s rental property.” • The convict has applied for a presidential pardon in the US, where he pleaded guilty to wire fraud. • Cottrell received an £8.5 million Chelsea property from the billionaire Reform treasurer Nick Candy in the last year. Land Registry documents say the price paid was zero. Candy said Cottrell paid him by buying shares in an offshore Guernsey company but would not specify the value of the transaction.
The code of conduct says MPs must disclose any benefit which “might reasonably be thought by others to influence [their] actions or words” on their register of interests. Its “overall aim” is to protect democracy by upholding the highest levels of transparency.
It says MPs must declare any gifts, benefits and hospitality” received in the year preceding their election and which relate “in any way” to their “political activities”. The exception is “purely personal” gifts, such as presents from family. Even then, the code says “both the possible motive of the giver and the use [of the gift] should be considered”, clarifying: “If there is any doubt, the benefit should be registered.”
Revealed: Nigel Farage secretly funded by convicted criminal
The Reform UK leader did not declare benefits including staff, security and housing by crypto-gambler George Cottrell, our investigation reveals
...Farage appears to have broken MPs’ rules by failing to declare that Cottrell provided funding for his operation in the year before his election.
We can also reveal that:
• The Reform leader received “in kind” benefits ranging from his back office to his private security, staff, transport and accommodation. • Cottrell recruited and paid three staff to transform Farage’s social media presence, producing content on immigration, human rights law and political correctness, and that promoted Reform. • Cottrell has been involved in a crypto-gambling platform implicated in illegal betting in the UK. • Two men — a friend of Cottrell’s and a Reform employee — owned UK companies which allowed illicit payments originally from or destined for the platform, which did not have a legally required UK licence. • Since the election Cottrell has let Farage use a five-storey house he rents on a street near Buckingham Palace. His lawyer said: “As a close friend, our client did, and does, allow Mr Farage to stay in our client’s rental property.” • The convict has applied for a presidential pardon in the US, where he pleaded guilty to wire fraud. • Cottrell received an £8.5 million Chelsea property from the billionaire Reform treasurer Nick Candy in the last year. Land Registry documents say the price paid was zero. Candy said Cottrell paid him by buying shares in an offshore Guernsey company but would not specify the value of the transaction.
The code of conduct says MPs must disclose any benefit which “might reasonably be thought by others to influence [their] actions or words” on their register of interests. Its “overall aim” is to protect democracy by upholding the highest levels of transparency.
It says MPs must declare any gifts, benefits and hospitality” received in the year preceding their election and which relate “in any way” to their “political activities”. The exception is “purely personal” gifts, such as presents from family. Even then, the code says “both the possible motive of the giver and the use [of the gift] should be considered”, clarifying: “If there is any doubt, the benefit should be registered.”
Having been teflon for so long I am starting to think that Farage's corruption may finally have destroyed him. How will Reform fare without him?
Well if its Tice at the helm they're sunk. (I genuinely don't know why I don't like him, but he's, at least to me, horrid). Yousef is disliked by many too. Jenrick, Bravermann, no for all sorts of reasons. And then it's down to Mrs Miggins from the pie shop.
There seems to be some new push on social media where Trump and supporters are spinning the bullshit about the US paying for NATO and carrying Europe.
It’s sort of funny they should be doing this on Independence Day when that really came about because they didn’t want to pay taxes to help cover their defence and the costs of the French Indian War. Maybe MaGAs could try and think about that.
My lifelong affection for America is on pause.
Yes, and I am not sure it is coming back. They have elected an imbecile like Trump twice. What does he represent? Corruption, arrogance, patronising tosh. The USA now abuses its erstwhile allies. It abuses countries like Ukraine who should be natural friends. They impose cavalier and irrational penalties like tariffs. With a deeply corrupt and utterly dishonest Supreme Court they have abandoned any interest in the rule of law. To blame all of this on one kleptomaniac is to give the US a pass it frankly does not deserve. We need better friends and more reliable defence. It is time to wave a sad goodbye.
I agree in spades but I'm not quite there yet. If the GOP stays rotten after Donald Trump I will be. By rotten I mean all this braindead nasty stuff that he has exploited and encouraged, I don't mean economically right wing and socially conservative politics. That's just on the whole contrary to what I happen to prefer, it's not a mortal threat to decency and civilisation.
I would like to agree - there is so much that is still wonderful about USA.
But the GOP is so clearly Trump's creature now. Those who, as you say, are economically right wing and socially conservative like Romney have been expunged.
When MTG is your sane voice deciding to call Trump out, I'm not sure there is any way back from them as a party. And given the US is truly a two-party system, I can't see how the Dems don't end up having to follow them down the plug hole (not to say that the Dems are shining beacons on the hill at present).
USA is a brilliant country. I think it's politics might be irredeemable, though.
Revealed: Nigel Farage secretly funded by convicted criminal
The Reform UK leader did not declare benefits including staff, security and housing by crypto-gambler George Cottrell, our investigation reveals
...Farage appears to have broken MPs’ rules by failing to declare that Cottrell provided funding for his operation in the year before his election.
We can also reveal that:
• The Reform leader received “in kind” benefits ranging from his back office to his private security, staff, transport and accommodation. • Cottrell recruited and paid three staff to transform Farage’s social media presence, producing content on immigration, human rights law and political correctness, and that promoted Reform. • Cottrell has been involved in a crypto-gambling platform implicated in illegal betting in the UK. • Two men — a friend of Cottrell’s and a Reform employee — owned UK companies which allowed illicit payments originally from or destined for the platform, which did not have a legally required UK licence. • Since the election Cottrell has let Farage use a five-storey house he rents on a street near Buckingham Palace. His lawyer said: “As a close friend, our client did, and does, allow Mr Farage to stay in our client’s rental property.” • The convict has applied for a presidential pardon in the US, where he pleaded guilty to wire fraud. • Cottrell received an £8.5 million Chelsea property from the billionaire Reform treasurer Nick Candy in the last year. Land Registry documents say the price paid was zero. Candy said Cottrell paid him by buying shares in an offshore Guernsey company but would not specify the value of the transaction.
The code of conduct says MPs must disclose any benefit which “might reasonably be thought by others to influence [their] actions or words” on their register of interests. Its “overall aim” is to protect democracy by upholding the highest levels of transparency.
It says MPs must declare any gifts, benefits and hospitality” received in the year preceding their election and which relate “in any way” to their “political activities”. The exception is “purely personal” gifts, such as presents from family. Even then, the code says “both the possible motive of the giver and the use [of the gift] should be considered”, clarifying: “If there is any doubt, the benefit should be registered.”
Having been teflon for so long I am starting to think that Farage's corruption may finally have destroyed him. How will Reform fare without him?
Well if its Tice at the helm they're sunk. (I genuinely don't know why I don't like him, but he's, at least to me, horrid). Yousef is disliked by many too. Jenrick, Bravermann, no for all sorts of reasons. And then it's down to Mrs Miggins from the pie shop.
Revealed: Nigel Farage secretly funded by convicted criminal
The Reform UK leader did not declare benefits including staff, security and housing by crypto-gambler George Cottrell, our investigation reveals
...Farage appears to have broken MPs’ rules by failing to declare that Cottrell provided funding for his operation in the year before his election.
We can also reveal that:
• The Reform leader received “in kind” benefits ranging from his back office to his private security, staff, transport and accommodation. • Cottrell recruited and paid three staff to transform Farage’s social media presence, producing content on immigration, human rights law and political correctness, and that promoted Reform. • Cottrell has been involved in a crypto-gambling platform implicated in illegal betting in the UK. • Two men — a friend of Cottrell’s and a Reform employee — owned UK companies which allowed illicit payments originally from or destined for the platform, which did not have a legally required UK licence. • Since the election Cottrell has let Farage use a five-storey house he rents on a street near Buckingham Palace. His lawyer said: “As a close friend, our client did, and does, allow Mr Farage to stay in our client’s rental property.” • The convict has applied for a presidential pardon in the US, where he pleaded guilty to wire fraud. • Cottrell received an £8.5 million Chelsea property from the billionaire Reform treasurer Nick Candy in the last year. Land Registry documents say the price paid was zero. Candy said Cottrell paid him by buying shares in an offshore Guernsey company but would not specify the value of the transaction.
The code of conduct says MPs must disclose any benefit which “might reasonably be thought by others to influence [their] actions or words” on their register of interests. Its “overall aim” is to protect democracy by upholding the highest levels of transparency.
It says MPs must declare any gifts, benefits and hospitality” received in the year preceding their election and which relate “in any way” to their “political activities”. The exception is “purely personal” gifts, such as presents from family. Even then, the code says “both the possible motive of the giver and the use [of the gift] should be considered”, clarifying: “If there is any doubt, the benefit should be registered.”
I am very impressed by @interested's attempts to mangle the basic economics of supply and demand.
A land value tax would almost certainly lower rents, because it would discourage properties from being left empty.
O level economics if costs go up the supply curve shifts and prices rise.it’s you that is mangling the basic laws of economics
Shall we ask Claude?
"What would the likely impact on rents in the UK be of the introduction of a land value tax?"
To which Claude responded:
"Short answer: standard economic theory predicts that a well-designed land value tax (LVT) shouldn't raise rents at all, and in fact could push them down slightly.
The core theoretical argument Land differs from produced goods (like buildings) because its supply is fixed — you can't create more of it in response to price signals. Standard tax incidence theory says the burden of a tax falls on the side of the market that's least able to adjust quantity. Since landowners can't reduce the supply of land in response to a tax, they can't pass the cost on to tenants through higher rents. The tax gets "capitalized" into a lower land value instead — the landowner absorbs it, roughly one-for-one, through a drop in what the land is worth. This is different from a tax on buildings or improvements (like most property taxes), where supply can shrink over time (less construction, less maintenance), which does tend to get partly passed through to renters. Why it might even push rents down If an LVT replaces less efficient taxes (like taxes on labor, capital, or construction), it removes the disincentive to build. A tax on land value doesn't penalize you for adding a building — unlike a conventional property tax, which taxes the improvement too. So LVT can encourage more intensive use of land (more housing built on it), which increases housing supply and puts downward pressure on rents over time. There's also an argument that LVT discourages land speculation and "warehousing" of vacant or underused sites, since holding unproductive land becomes costlier — again nudging more land into productive (housing) use."
Now, it could be that Claude is mangling basic economics.
Or it could be that you're simply wrong.
Must admit I am surprised. Still seems counter intuitive to me. Why would all landlords accept lower returns and still stay in the market. After all we have seen them exit the market because of the new regulations.
Probably because the return on investment is greater that they could get elsewhere.
Say you can let a £250,000 flat for £1,000 a month. That's a 10% return, and the property appreciates. What else would you do with that quarter of a million?
But you have agents fees, maintenance, void periods, electric and gas regulations to complied with, service charges, ground rents, licensing costs, bad debts. You would be doing well to get anywhere near a 5% yield. Yield on Uk equities or gilts look attractive with less hassle and risk.
That's fine though. There's something wrong if you can coin it (good yield plus capital gains) simply by buying and renting out property. That those times seem to be over in many places in the UK is not a mourning matter. It should be an activity where a 'solid but no more' return is possible so long as you do it to a professional standard and always remember that your investment is somebody's home.
Don’t disagree
Well that's popped my balloon. I'll stop chuntering on then.
What a super exchange 🙂
The basic problem is that the cost of creating properties has skyrocketed. We have hit an affordability ceiling in a number of areas. Which has shut down further construction.
Government can build, but must then do one of the following
1) take a loss to provide affordable housing 2) build expensive properties 3) reduce the cost of properties
You're not wrong about the cost of construction - in London we have the Community Infrastructure Levy, Carbon Offset Levy and Section 106 and I suspect others.
The argument is if you add more dwellings into existing communities that puts pressure on both kinds of infrastructure - the "hard", such as pipes, sewage, cables, wires etc and the "soft" -medical and transport capacities, schools and perhaps crime. Existing residents want some kind of if not guarantee then reassurance they won't be the losers if thousands of new dwellings are added to their area.
You can turn a deaf ear as many on here do and call it "NIMBY" but the truth is settled communities are concerned by the possible addition of considerable numbers of new properties without their consent.
So what?
Its not their land and not their place.
People in the country deserve somewhere to live. Whether others like it or not.
That's not how people see it even if you think they are wrong.
There's a plan to put 700 dwellings on a brownfield site near me - now, I'm not wholly opposed but I'm entitled to ask even if you don't think it's "my place" how that many new homes and people will impact on the existing community. An example, there will be little or no parking provided but as we know people will still come with cars and will try to find places to park and that will cause issues with existing residents.
I realise there's a national need to provide housing - I think at the moment there are a glut of homes trying to be sold but even at the slightly reduced prices on offer, there aren't many takers and to look at the other side of the coin, for a lot of people their home is their principal asset (rightly or wrongly). They won't be happy to see that depreciate by 10-20% so you may well see a lot of people simply holding on and waiting for the market to turn and what is the point for developers if they can't realise construction costs at the end of the process?
I don't often side with Bart when it comes to planning and housing but surely if it is a brownfield site it should be the perfect place for building. And the issue of parking is not a reason to object to the house building but a reason to object to whatever restrictions the council have put in place to prevent parking. I know from Swindon the council has been on a campaign to reduce car usage by making it almost impossible to own a car in many estates. It is an idiotic way to do things and all it has done is to move the problem to neighbouring areas.
My own council is one of those that thinks it can legislate people out of the cars they want to drive.
A pro-motorist party would have a USP at the next elections which I think are next May, and would be likely to do very well.
Revealed: Nigel Farage secretly funded by convicted criminal
The Reform UK leader did not declare benefits including staff, security and housing by crypto-gambler George Cottrell, our investigation reveals
...Farage appears to have broken MPs’ rules by failing to declare that Cottrell provided funding for his operation in the year before his election.
We can also reveal that:
• The Reform leader received “in kind” benefits ranging from his back office to his private security, staff, transport and accommodation. • Cottrell recruited and paid three staff to transform Farage’s social media presence, producing content on immigration, human rights law and political correctness, and that promoted Reform. • Cottrell has been involved in a crypto-gambling platform implicated in illegal betting in the UK. • Two men — a friend of Cottrell’s and a Reform employee — owned UK companies which allowed illicit payments originally from or destined for the platform, which did not have a legally required UK licence. • Since the election Cottrell has let Farage use a five-storey house he rents on a street near Buckingham Palace. His lawyer said: “As a close friend, our client did, and does, allow Mr Farage to stay in our client’s rental property.” • The convict has applied for a presidential pardon in the US, where he pleaded guilty to wire fraud. • Cottrell received an £8.5 million Chelsea property from the billionaire Reform treasurer Nick Candy in the last year. Land Registry documents say the price paid was zero. Candy said Cottrell paid him by buying shares in an offshore Guernsey company but would not specify the value of the transaction.
The code of conduct says MPs must disclose any benefit which “might reasonably be thought by others to influence [their] actions or words” on their register of interests. Its “overall aim” is to protect democracy by upholding the highest levels of transparency.
It says MPs must declare any gifts, benefits and hospitality” received in the year preceding their election and which relate “in any way” to their “political activities”. The exception is “purely personal” gifts, such as presents from family. Even then, the code says “both the possible motive of the giver and the use [of the gift] should be considered”, clarifying: “If there is any doubt, the benefit should be registered.”
Having been teflon for so long I am starting to think that Farage's corruption may finally have destroyed him. How will Reform fare without him?
Well if its Tice at the helm they're sunk. (I genuinely don't know why I don't like him, but he's, at least to me, horrid). Yousef is disliked by many too. Jenrick, Bravermann, no for all sorts of reasons. And then it's down to Mrs Miggins from the pie shop.
Reform won't flourish without Farage.
If they could find a Mrs Miggins they may be in with a chance but it is looking unlikely. I really try hard to be nice but the schadenfreude about Jenrick's position is simply too delicious to resist.
I am very impressed by @interested's attempts to mangle the basic economics of supply and demand.
A land value tax would almost certainly lower rents, because it would discourage properties from being left empty.
O level economics if costs go up the supply curve shifts and prices rise.it’s you that is mangling the basic laws of economics
Shall we ask Claude?
"What would the likely impact on rents in the UK be of the introduction of a land value tax?"
To which Claude responded:
"Short answer: standard economic theory predicts that a well-designed land value tax (LVT) shouldn't raise rents at all, and in fact could push them down slightly.
The core theoretical argument Land differs from produced goods (like buildings) because its supply is fixed — you can't create more of it in response to price signals. Standard tax incidence theory says the burden of a tax falls on the side of the market that's least able to adjust quantity. Since landowners can't reduce the supply of land in response to a tax, they can't pass the cost on to tenants through higher rents. The tax gets "capitalized" into a lower land value instead — the landowner absorbs it, roughly one-for-one, through a drop in what the land is worth. This is different from a tax on buildings or improvements (like most property taxes), where supply can shrink over time (less construction, less maintenance), which does tend to get partly passed through to renters. Why it might even push rents down If an LVT replaces less efficient taxes (like taxes on labor, capital, or construction), it removes the disincentive to build. A tax on land value doesn't penalize you for adding a building — unlike a conventional property tax, which taxes the improvement too. So LVT can encourage more intensive use of land (more housing built on it), which increases housing supply and puts downward pressure on rents over time. There's also an argument that LVT discourages land speculation and "warehousing" of vacant or underused sites, since holding unproductive land becomes costlier — again nudging more land into productive (housing) use."
Now, it could be that Claude is mangling basic economics.
Or it could be that you're simply wrong.
Must admit I am surprised. Still seems counter intuitive to me. Why would all landlords accept lower returns and still stay in the market. After all we have seen them exit the market because of the new regulations.
Theory: Landlords accept lower returns because the properties cost less to buy, because their value has dropped, because of the LVT liability. Landlords holding property at the moment the tax is introduced can either suck up the rate of return, or sell up, but if lots sell up, prices will fall, so they take the hit either way.
Personally, I think that the incidence will mainly be on the occupier - because the total annual cost of renting a house is unlikely to drop below the total annual cost of being an owner occupier. Owner occupiers will cop for LVT, thus increasing the total cost of being an owner occupier, and supply and demand will therefore adjust the total cost of renting to a similar offset to present.
More practically, how does LVT interact with planning permission, as planning permission, or even the possibility of obtaining planning permission radically alters land value - are we taking the "core" value, as if everything is an acre of average grassland? Are we taking current market value? Do we value land with an industrial building on it at the value of farmland, land with planning for an industrial building, or land which might get in the future planning for housing?
If LVT is just a flat rate for acreage, it's mainly going to be paid by farmers. But that isn't going to fly except at a very low rate because realistically we can't fund most government spending by taxing the farmers.
If LVT is based on the land's planning status, then we're back to the problem that "improving" the land by getting planning immediately bumps the value of land and thus back to economic disincentives for development.
Possibly we could just exclude agricultural land from the tax completely, then flat rate everything else, but that risks introducing a load of perverse incentives too (I forget if the enterprising people who were trying to get their empty industrial building removed from business rates by farming snails in it were successful or not!).
It's a nice idea in theory, but I think in practice it would probably lead to as many peverse outcomes as stamp duty, business rates and council tax create now.
Revealed: Nigel Farage secretly funded by convicted criminal
The Reform UK leader did not declare benefits including staff, security and housing by crypto-gambler George Cottrell, our investigation reveals
...Farage appears to have broken MPs’ rules by failing to declare that Cottrell provided funding for his operation in the year before his election.
We can also reveal that:
• The Reform leader received “in kind” benefits ranging from his back office to his private security, staff, transport and accommodation. • Cottrell recruited and paid three staff to transform Farage’s social media presence, producing content on immigration, human rights law and political correctness, and that promoted Reform. • Cottrell has been involved in a crypto-gambling platform implicated in illegal betting in the UK. • Two men — a friend of Cottrell’s and a Reform employee — owned UK companies which allowed illicit payments originally from or destined for the platform, which did not have a legally required UK licence. • Since the election Cottrell has let Farage use a five-storey house he rents on a street near Buckingham Palace. His lawyer said: “As a close friend, our client did, and does, allow Mr Farage to stay in our client’s rental property.” • The convict has applied for a presidential pardon in the US, where he pleaded guilty to wire fraud. • Cottrell received an £8.5 million Chelsea property from the billionaire Reform treasurer Nick Candy in the last year. Land Registry documents say the price paid was zero. Candy said Cottrell paid him by buying shares in an offshore Guernsey company but would not specify the value of the transaction.
The code of conduct says MPs must disclose any benefit which “might reasonably be thought by others to influence [their] actions or words” on their register of interests. Its “overall aim” is to protect democracy by upholding the highest levels of transparency.
It says MPs must declare any gifts, benefits and hospitality” received in the year preceding their election and which relate “in any way” to their “political activities”. The exception is “purely personal” gifts, such as presents from family. Even then, the code says “both the possible motive of the giver and the use [of the gift] should be considered”, clarifying: “If there is any doubt, the benefit should be registered.”
Having been teflon for so long I am starting to think that Farage's corruption may finally have destroyed him. How will Reform fare without him?
What is increasingly certain is that Reform are not going to form or lead the next government and Farage is finished. And there is an end to major figures leaping to Reform from the Tories. And figures like Kruger and Montgomerie are looking wan and sad.
Revealed: Nigel Farage secretly funded by convicted criminal
The Reform UK leader did not declare benefits including staff, security and housing by crypto-gambler George Cottrell, our investigation reveals
...Farage appears to have broken MPs’ rules by failing to declare that Cottrell provided funding for his operation in the year before his election.
We can also reveal that:
• The Reform leader received “in kind” benefits ranging from his back office to his private security, staff, transport and accommodation. • Cottrell recruited and paid three staff to transform Farage’s social media presence, producing content on immigration, human rights law and political correctness, and that promoted Reform. • Cottrell has been involved in a crypto-gambling platform implicated in illegal betting in the UK. • Two men — a friend of Cottrell’s and a Reform employee — owned UK companies which allowed illicit payments originally from or destined for the platform, which did not have a legally required UK licence. • Since the election Cottrell has let Farage use a five-storey house he rents on a street near Buckingham Palace. His lawyer said: “As a close friend, our client did, and does, allow Mr Farage to stay in our client’s rental property.” • The convict has applied for a presidential pardon in the US, where he pleaded guilty to wire fraud. • Cottrell received an £8.5 million Chelsea property from the billionaire Reform treasurer Nick Candy in the last year. Land Registry documents say the price paid was zero. Candy said Cottrell paid him by buying shares in an offshore Guernsey company but would not specify the value of the transaction.
The code of conduct says MPs must disclose any benefit which “might reasonably be thought by others to influence [their] actions or words” on their register of interests. Its “overall aim” is to protect democracy by upholding the highest levels of transparency.
It says MPs must declare any gifts, benefits and hospitality” received in the year preceding their election and which relate “in any way” to their “political activities”. The exception is “purely personal” gifts, such as presents from family. Even then, the code says “both the possible motive of the giver and the use [of the gift] should be considered”, clarifying: “If there is any doubt, the benefit should be registered.”
Having been teflon for so long I am starting to think that Farage's corruption may finally have destroyed him. How will Reform fare without him?
What is increasingly certain is that Reform are not going to form or lead the next government and Farage is finished. And there is an end to major figures leaping to Reform from the Tories. And figures like Kruger and Montgomerie are looking wan and sad.
Reform are likely to collapse. How many of their erstwhile supporters go to Kemi and how many to Restore? Might decide the largest party after the next election.
There seems to be some new push on social media where Trump and supporters are spinning the bullshit about the US paying for NATO and carrying Europe.
It’s sort of funny they should be doing this on Independence Day when that really came about because they didn’t want to pay taxes to help cover their defence and the costs of the French Indian War. Maybe MaGAs could try and think about that.
My lifelong affection for America is on pause.
Yes, and I am not sure it is coming back. They have elected an imbecile like Trump twice. What does he represent? Corruption, arrogance, patronising tosh. The USA now abuses its erstwhile allies. It abuses countries like Ukraine who should be natural friends. They impose cavalier and irrational penalties like tariffs. With a deeply corrupt and utterly dishonest Supreme Court they have abandoned any interest in the rule of law. To blame all of this on one kleptomaniac is to give the US a pass it frankly does not deserve. We need better friends and more reliable defence. It is time to wave a sad goodbye.
I agree in spades but I'm not quite there yet. If the GOP stays rotten after Donald Trump I will be. By rotten I mean all this braindead nasty stuff that he has exploited and encouraged, I don't mean economically right wing and socially conservative politics. That's just on the whole contrary to what I happen to prefer, it's not a mortal threat to decency and civilisation.
I would like to agree - there is so much that is still wonderful about USA.
But the GOP is so clearly Trump's creature now. Those who, as you say, are economically right wing and socially conservative like Romney have been expunged.
When MTG is your sane voice deciding to call Trump out, I'm not sure there is any way back from them as a party. And given the US is truly a two-party system, I can't see how the Dems don't end up having to follow them down the plug hole (not to say that the Dems are shining beacons on the hill at present).
USA is a brilliant country. I think it's politics might be irredeemable, though.
I am very impressed by @interested's attempts to mangle the basic economics of supply and demand.
A land value tax would almost certainly lower rents, because it would discourage properties from being left empty.
O level economics if costs go up the supply curve shifts and prices rise.it’s you that is mangling the basic laws of economics
Shall we ask Claude?
"What would the likely impact on rents in the UK be of the introduction of a land value tax?"
To which Claude responded:
"Short answer: standard economic theory predicts that a well-designed land value tax (LVT) shouldn't raise rents at all, and in fact could push them down slightly.
The core theoretical argument Land differs from produced goods (like buildings) because its supply is fixed — you can't create more of it in response to price signals. Standard tax incidence theory says the burden of a tax falls on the side of the market that's least able to adjust quantity. Since landowners can't reduce the supply of land in response to a tax, they can't pass the cost on to tenants through higher rents. The tax gets "capitalized" into a lower land value instead — the landowner absorbs it, roughly one-for-one, through a drop in what the land is worth. This is different from a tax on buildings or improvements (like most property taxes), where supply can shrink over time (less construction, less maintenance), which does tend to get partly passed through to renters. Why it might even push rents down If an LVT replaces less efficient taxes (like taxes on labor, capital, or construction), it removes the disincentive to build. A tax on land value doesn't penalize you for adding a building — unlike a conventional property tax, which taxes the improvement too. So LVT can encourage more intensive use of land (more housing built on it), which increases housing supply and puts downward pressure on rents over time. There's also an argument that LVT discourages land speculation and "warehousing" of vacant or underused sites, since holding unproductive land becomes costlier — again nudging more land into productive (housing) use."
Now, it could be that Claude is mangling basic economics.
Or it could be that you're simply wrong.
Must admit I am surprised. Still seems counter intuitive to me. Why would all landlords accept lower returns and still stay in the market. After all we have seen them exit the market because of the new regulations.
Probably because the return on investment is greater that they could get elsewhere.
Say you can let a £250,000 flat for £1,000 a month. That's a 10% return, and the property appreciates. What else would you do with that quarter of a million?
But you have agents fees, maintenance, void periods, electric and gas regulations to complied with, service charges, ground rents, licensing costs, bad debts. You would be doing well to get anywhere near a 5% yield. Yield on Uk equities or gilts look attractive with less hassle and risk.
That's fine though. There's something wrong if you can coin it (good yield plus capital gains) simply by buying and renting out property. That those times seem to be over in many places in the UK is not a mourning matter. It should be an activity where a 'solid but no more' return is possible so long as you do it to a professional standard and always remember that your investment is somebody's home.
Don’t disagree
Well that's popped my balloon. I'll stop chuntering on then.
What a super exchange 🙂
The basic problem is that the cost of creating properties has skyrocketed. We have hit an affordability ceiling in a number of areas. Which has shut down further construction.
Government can build, but must then do one of the following
1) take a loss to provide affordable housing 2) build expensive properties 3) reduce the cost of properties
You're not wrong about the cost of construction - in London we have the Community Infrastructure Levy, Carbon Offset Levy and Section 106 and I suspect others.
The argument is if you add more dwellings into existing communities that puts pressure on both kinds of infrastructure - the "hard", such as pipes, sewage, cables, wires etc and the "soft" -medical and transport capacities, schools and perhaps crime. Existing residents want some kind of if not guarantee then reassurance they won't be the losers if thousands of new dwellings are added to their area.
You can turn a deaf ear as many on here do and call it "NIMBY" but the truth is settled communities are concerned by the possible addition of considerable numbers of new properties without their consent.
So what?
Its not their land and not their place.
People in the country deserve somewhere to live. Whether others like it or not.
That's not how people see it even if you think they are wrong.
There's a plan to put 700 dwellings on a brownfield site near me - now, I'm not wholly opposed but I'm entitled to ask even if you don't think it's "my place" how that many new homes and people will impact on the existing community. An example, there will be little or no parking provided but as we know people will still come with cars and will try to find places to park and that will cause issues with existing residents.
I realise there's a national need to provide housing - I think at the moment there are a glut of homes trying to be sold but even at the slightly reduced prices on offer, there aren't many takers and to look at the other side of the coin, for a lot of people their home is their principal asset (rightly or wrongly). They won't be happy to see that depreciate by 10-20% so you may well see a lot of people simply holding on and waiting for the market to turn and what is the point for developers if they can't realise construction costs at the end of the process?
Yes, you are entitled to think that - and I am entitled to think you are wrong. That's the benefits of a free society.
Its easy to recognise a need to provide housing, but think it should be provided somewhere else.
There simply is factually not a glut of homes trying to be sold - the proportion of homes that are vacant is incredibly low. People holding on because they want more money than it is worth does not make a glut.
There are many homes being built around here, I live in a new build in a newly developed area, and homes are not left unoccupied for long.
Developers can and do realise construction costs. Indeed well above construction costs - much of the cost of housing is not construction costs, but rather land costs. Land with permission gets an extra 0 on its value over land without. Eliminate that differential and the cost of new construction could come down considerably.
There are elements of your response which run completely contrary to my experience in East London and I'm quite prepared to accept "the housing market" is a fickle beast behaving differently in different areas.
One of the problems in my part of East London is there is no greenfield - the only spare space is brownfield and often contaminated brownfield. The development near me is on a site with a gas holder - NOT one of the original ones such as at Bromley by Bow but a post-war addition after the original was destroyed by the Luftwaffe.
The land is also contaminated having been used by National Grid to dump spoil from other sites so the remediation time and costs have to be factored into the project and the timescale is compromised by the need to carry all this out in advance of construction.
This is not atypical of urban brownfield and is part of why construction costs are so high. I don't even think 700 homes will cover the costs and the developers may press for more properties but we'll see.
The world of greenfield development is no doubt entirely different - I don't know.
As for the market itself, I can only speak as I find - it used to be a very active rental market in East Ham given the transient nature of the population but a glut of ex-rental properties has come on to the market and mixed with the normal warp and weft of properties being sold has led to a stagnation in prices. The bigger landlords can only take so many and the new brownfield developments here are shared ownership or rental. Newham want to make the new brownfield development near me 75% affordable housing.
https://www.opinium.com/resource-center/voting-intention-17th-june-2026/ Reform UK continues to lead voting intention on 27%, despite falling two points since earlier this month. Labour remains on 20%, while the Conservatives have edged up to 18%. The Greens stand on 14% and the Liberal Democrats on 12%.
https://www.opinium.com/resource-center/voting-intention-3rd-june-2026/ Reform UK leads voting intention on 29%, up two points since last month. This is the highest Reform share since early March. Labour remains on 20%, while the Conservatives are on 17%. The Greens stand on 14% and the Liberal Democrats on 11%.
Revealed: Nigel Farage secretly funded by convicted criminal
The Reform UK leader did not declare benefits including staff, security and housing by crypto-gambler George Cottrell, our investigation reveals
...Farage appears to have broken MPs’ rules by failing to declare that Cottrell provided funding for his operation in the year before his election.
We can also reveal that:
• The Reform leader received “in kind” benefits ranging from his back office to his private security, staff, transport and accommodation. • Cottrell recruited and paid three staff to transform Farage’s social media presence, producing content on immigration, human rights law and political correctness, and that promoted Reform. • Cottrell has been involved in a crypto-gambling platform implicated in illegal betting in the UK. • Two men — a friend of Cottrell’s and a Reform employee — owned UK companies which allowed illicit payments originally from or destined for the platform, which did not have a legally required UK licence. • Since the election Cottrell has let Farage use a five-storey house he rents on a street near Buckingham Palace. His lawyer said: “As a close friend, our client did, and does, allow Mr Farage to stay in our client’s rental property.” • The convict has applied for a presidential pardon in the US, where he pleaded guilty to wire fraud. • Cottrell received an £8.5 million Chelsea property from the billionaire Reform treasurer Nick Candy in the last year. Land Registry documents say the price paid was zero. Candy said Cottrell paid him by buying shares in an offshore Guernsey company but would not specify the value of the transaction.
The code of conduct says MPs must disclose any benefit which “might reasonably be thought by others to influence [their] actions or words” on their register of interests. Its “overall aim” is to protect democracy by upholding the highest levels of transparency.
It says MPs must declare any gifts, benefits and hospitality” received in the year preceding their election and which relate “in any way” to their “political activities”. The exception is “purely personal” gifts, such as presents from family. Even then, the code says “both the possible motive of the giver and the use [of the gift] should be considered”, clarifying: “If there is any doubt, the benefit should be registered.”
Having been teflon for so long I am starting to think that Farage's corruption may finally have destroyed him. How will Reform fare without him?
What is increasingly certain is that Reform are not going to form or lead the next government and Farage is finished. And there is an end to major figures leaping to Reform from the Tories. And figures like Kruger and Montgomerie are looking wan and sad.
Reform are likely to collapse. How many of their erstwhile supporters go to Kemi and how many to Restore? Might decide the largest party after the next election.
Have to say while I accept for Conservatives like you and @algarkirk the end of Reform can't come soon enough, the fact remains they are still leading the polls and winning local council by-election seats including from the Conservatives.
People have written off Farage and rather like (you can add your own analogy), he keeps coming back. Perhaps this time he will be done but I'm not convinced.
There's also the small matter of the assumption somehow all the Reform vote will head Kemi's way - again, I'm not convinced.
There seems to be some new push on social media where Trump and supporters are spinning the bullshit about the US paying for NATO and carrying Europe.
It’s sort of funny they should be doing this on Independence Day when that really came about because they didn’t want to pay taxes to help cover their defence and the costs of the French Indian War. Maybe MaGAs could try and think about that.
My lifelong affection for America is on pause.
Yes, and I am not sure it is coming back. They have elected an imbecile like Trump twice. What does he represent? Corruption, arrogance, patronising tosh. The USA now abuses its erstwhile allies. It abuses countries like Ukraine who should be natural friends. They impose cavalier and irrational penalties like tariffs. With a deeply corrupt and utterly dishonest Supreme Court they have abandoned any interest in the rule of law. To blame all of this on one kleptomaniac is to give the US a pass it frankly does not deserve. We need better friends and more reliable defence. It is time to wave a sad goodbye.
I agree in spades but I'm not quite there yet. If the GOP stays rotten after Donald Trump I will be. By rotten I mean all this braindead nasty stuff that he has exploited and encouraged, I don't mean economically right wing and socially conservative politics. That's just on the whole contrary to what I happen to prefer, it's not a mortal threat to decency and civilisation.
I would like to agree - there is so much that is still wonderful about USA.
But the GOP is so clearly Trump's creature now. Those who, as you say, are economically right wing and socially conservative like Romney have been expunged.
When MTG is your sane voice deciding to call Trump out, I'm not sure there is any way back from them as a party. And given the US is truly a two-party system, I can't see how the Dems don't end up having to follow them down the plug hole (not to say that the Dems are shining beacons on the hill at present).
USA is a brilliant country. I think it's politics might be irredeemable, though.
I tried to read it, I really did, but I am supposed to be marking remote exam scripts from middle-eastern schools that couldn't take IGCSEs because of Trump's adventurism in Iran and it's quite long...plus anyone who uses semiquincentennial in a newspaper piece deserves to join the GOP in the seventh circle of hell IMO.
Thanks for posting, though - it's more interesting than the scripts.
Revealed: Nigel Farage secretly funded by convicted criminal
The Reform UK leader did not declare benefits including staff, security and housing by crypto-gambler George Cottrell, our investigation reveals
...Farage appears to have broken MPs’ rules by failing to declare that Cottrell provided funding for his operation in the year before his election.
We can also reveal that:
• The Reform leader received “in kind” benefits ranging from his back office to his private security, staff, transport and accommodation. • Cottrell recruited and paid three staff to transform Farage’s social media presence, producing content on immigration, human rights law and political correctness, and that promoted Reform. • Cottrell has been involved in a crypto-gambling platform implicated in illegal betting in the UK. • Two men — a friend of Cottrell’s and a Reform employee — owned UK companies which allowed illicit payments originally from or destined for the platform, which did not have a legally required UK licence. • Since the election Cottrell has let Farage use a five-storey house he rents on a street near Buckingham Palace. His lawyer said: “As a close friend, our client did, and does, allow Mr Farage to stay in our client’s rental property.” • The convict has applied for a presidential pardon in the US, where he pleaded guilty to wire fraud. • Cottrell received an £8.5 million Chelsea property from the billionaire Reform treasurer Nick Candy in the last year. Land Registry documents say the price paid was zero. Candy said Cottrell paid him by buying shares in an offshore Guernsey company but would not specify the value of the transaction.
The code of conduct says MPs must disclose any benefit which “might reasonably be thought by others to influence [their] actions or words” on their register of interests. Its “overall aim” is to protect democracy by upholding the highest levels of transparency.
It says MPs must declare any gifts, benefits and hospitality” received in the year preceding their election and which relate “in any way” to their “political activities”. The exception is “purely personal” gifts, such as presents from family. Even then, the code says “both the possible motive of the giver and the use [of the gift] should be considered”, clarifying: “If there is any doubt, the benefit should be registered.”
Having been teflon for so long I am starting to think that Farage's corruption may finally have destroyed him. How will Reform fare without him?
What is increasingly certain is that Reform are not going to form or lead the next government and Farage is finished. And there is an end to major figures leaping to Reform from the Tories. And figures like Kruger and Montgomerie are looking wan and sad.
Reform are likely to collapse. How many of their erstwhile supporters go to Kemi and how many to Restore? Might decide the largest party after the next election.
Have to say while I accept for Conservatives like you and @algarkirk the end of Reform can't come soon enough, the fact remains they are still leading the polls and winning local council by-election seats including from the Conservatives.
People have written off Farage and rather like (you can add your own analogy), he keeps coming back. Perhaps this time he will be done but I'm not convinced.
There's also the small matter of the assumption somehow all the Reform vote will head Kemi's way - again, I'm not convinced.
I am not assuming that, which is why I mentioned Restore. And I am not really a Tory these days or even for some time. But I do share the view that if Farage is driven out of Parliament by his failures to declare (which looks likely) Reform are likely to implode.
Revealed: Nigel Farage secretly funded by convicted criminal
The Reform UK leader did not declare benefits including staff, security and housing by crypto-gambler George Cottrell, our investigation reveals
...Farage appears to have broken MPs’ rules by failing to declare that Cottrell provided funding for his operation in the year before his election.
We can also reveal that:
• The Reform leader received “in kind” benefits ranging from his back office to his private security, staff, transport and accommodation. • Cottrell recruited and paid three staff to transform Farage’s social media presence, producing content on immigration, human rights law and political correctness, and that promoted Reform. • Cottrell has been involved in a crypto-gambling platform implicated in illegal betting in the UK. • Two men — a friend of Cottrell’s and a Reform employee — owned UK companies which allowed illicit payments originally from or destined for the platform, which did not have a legally required UK licence. • Since the election Cottrell has let Farage use a five-storey house he rents on a street near Buckingham Palace. His lawyer said: “As a close friend, our client did, and does, allow Mr Farage to stay in our client’s rental property.” • The convict has applied for a presidential pardon in the US, where he pleaded guilty to wire fraud. • Cottrell received an £8.5 million Chelsea property from the billionaire Reform treasurer Nick Candy in the last year. Land Registry documents say the price paid was zero. Candy said Cottrell paid him by buying shares in an offshore Guernsey company but would not specify the value of the transaction.
The code of conduct says MPs must disclose any benefit which “might reasonably be thought by others to influence [their] actions or words” on their register of interests. Its “overall aim” is to protect democracy by upholding the highest levels of transparency.
It says MPs must declare any gifts, benefits and hospitality” received in the year preceding their election and which relate “in any way” to their “political activities”. The exception is “purely personal” gifts, such as presents from family. Even then, the code says “both the possible motive of the giver and the use [of the gift] should be considered”, clarifying: “If there is any doubt, the benefit should be registered.”
Having been teflon for so long I am starting to think that Farage's corruption may finally have destroyed him. How will Reform fare without him?
What is increasingly certain is that Reform are not going to form or lead the next government and Farage is finished. And there is an end to major figures leaping to Reform from the Tories. And figures like Kruger and Montgomerie are looking wan and sad.
Reform are likely to collapse. How many of their erstwhile supporters go to Kemi and how many to Restore? Might decide the largest party after the next election.
Have to say while I accept for Conservatives like you and @algarkirk the end of Reform can't come soon enough, the fact remains they are still leading the polls and winning local council by-election seats including from the Conservatives.
People have written off Farage and rather like (you can add your own analogy), he keeps coming back. Perhaps this time he will be done but I'm not convinced.
There's also the small matter of the assumption somehow all the Reform vote will head Kemi's way - again, I'm not convinced.
I am not assuming that, which is why I mentioned Restore. And I am not really a Tory these days or even for some time. But I do share the view that if Farage is driven out of Parliament by his failures to declare (which looks likely) Reform are likely to implode.
I think there's a lot of potential support for Restore out there.
While few say it openly, I suspect a party advocating the mass deportation of non-white, non-Christian people will have more support than many of us would imagine.
Revealed: Nigel Farage secretly funded by convicted criminal
The Reform UK leader did not declare benefits including staff, security and housing by crypto-gambler George Cottrell, our investigation reveals
...Farage appears to have broken MPs’ rules by failing to declare that Cottrell provided funding for his operation in the year before his election.
We can also reveal that:
• The Reform leader received “in kind” benefits ranging from his back office to his private security, staff, transport and accommodation. • Cottrell recruited and paid three staff to transform Farage’s social media presence, producing content on immigration, human rights law and political correctness, and that promoted Reform. • Cottrell has been involved in a crypto-gambling platform implicated in illegal betting in the UK. • Two men — a friend of Cottrell’s and a Reform employee — owned UK companies which allowed illicit payments originally from or destined for the platform, which did not have a legally required UK licence. • Since the election Cottrell has let Farage use a five-storey house he rents on a street near Buckingham Palace. His lawyer said: “As a close friend, our client did, and does, allow Mr Farage to stay in our client’s rental property.” • The convict has applied for a presidential pardon in the US, where he pleaded guilty to wire fraud. • Cottrell received an £8.5 million Chelsea property from the billionaire Reform treasurer Nick Candy in the last year. Land Registry documents say the price paid was zero. Candy said Cottrell paid him by buying shares in an offshore Guernsey company but would not specify the value of the transaction.
The code of conduct says MPs must disclose any benefit which “might reasonably be thought by others to influence [their] actions or words” on their register of interests. Its “overall aim” is to protect democracy by upholding the highest levels of transparency.
It says MPs must declare any gifts, benefits and hospitality” received in the year preceding their election and which relate “in any way” to their “political activities”. The exception is “purely personal” gifts, such as presents from family. Even then, the code says “both the possible motive of the giver and the use [of the gift] should be considered”, clarifying: “If there is any doubt, the benefit should be registered.”
Having been teflon for so long I am starting to think that Farage's corruption may finally have destroyed him. How will Reform fare without him?
What is increasingly certain is that Reform are not going to form or lead the next government and Farage is finished. And there is an end to major figures leaping to Reform from the Tories. And figures like Kruger and Montgomerie are looking wan and sad.
Reform are likely to collapse. How many of their erstwhile supporters go to Kemi and how many to Restore? Might decide the largest party after the next election.
Have to say while I accept for Conservatives like you and @algarkirk the end of Reform can't come soon enough, the fact remains they are still leading the polls and winning local council by-election seats including from the Conservatives.
People have written off Farage and rather like (you can add your own analogy), he keeps coming back. Perhaps this time he will be done but I'm not convinced.
There's also the small matter of the assumption somehow all the Reform vote will head Kemi's way - again, I'm not convinced.
All the reform vote will not return to the conservatives but some will and it depends on how many
Straws in the wind of conservatives rowing in behind Kemi, with Rees Mogg this week and interestingly Kemi receiving advice from previous conservative pms [ not Truss] and leaders including Cameron and Boris
Three years to go and a lot of ground to make up but I do expect Kemi to crossover with reform in the next 12 months
Revealed: Nigel Farage secretly funded by convicted criminal
The Reform UK leader did not declare benefits including staff, security and housing by crypto-gambler George Cottrell, our investigation reveals
...Farage appears to have broken MPs’ rules by failing to declare that Cottrell provided funding for his operation in the year before his election.
We can also reveal that:
• The Reform leader received “in kind” benefits ranging from his back office to his private security, staff, transport and accommodation. • Cottrell recruited and paid three staff to transform Farage’s social media presence, producing content on immigration, human rights law and political correctness, and that promoted Reform. • Cottrell has been involved in a crypto-gambling platform implicated in illegal betting in the UK. • Two men — a friend of Cottrell’s and a Reform employee — owned UK companies which allowed illicit payments originally from or destined for the platform, which did not have a legally required UK licence. • Since the election Cottrell has let Farage use a five-storey house he rents on a street near Buckingham Palace. His lawyer said: “As a close friend, our client did, and does, allow Mr Farage to stay in our client’s rental property.” • The convict has applied for a presidential pardon in the US, where he pleaded guilty to wire fraud. • Cottrell received an £8.5 million Chelsea property from the billionaire Reform treasurer Nick Candy in the last year. Land Registry documents say the price paid was zero. Candy said Cottrell paid him by buying shares in an offshore Guernsey company but would not specify the value of the transaction.
The code of conduct says MPs must disclose any benefit which “might reasonably be thought by others to influence [their] actions or words” on their register of interests. Its “overall aim” is to protect democracy by upholding the highest levels of transparency.
It says MPs must declare any gifts, benefits and hospitality” received in the year preceding their election and which relate “in any way” to their “political activities”. The exception is “purely personal” gifts, such as presents from family. Even then, the code says “both the possible motive of the giver and the use [of the gift] should be considered”, clarifying: “If there is any doubt, the benefit should be registered.”
Having been teflon for so long I am starting to think that Farage's corruption may finally have destroyed him. How will Reform fare without him?
What is increasingly certain is that Reform are not going to form or lead the next government and Farage is finished. And there is an end to major figures leaping to Reform from the Tories. And figures like Kruger and Montgomerie are looking wan and sad.
Reform are likely to collapse. How many of their erstwhile supporters go to Kemi and how many to Restore? Might decide the largest party after the next election.
Have to say while I accept for Conservatives like you and @algarkirk the end of Reform can't come soon enough, the fact remains they are still leading the polls and winning local council by-election seats including from the Conservatives.
People have written off Farage and rather like (you can add your own analogy), he keeps coming back. Perhaps this time he will be done but I'm not convinced.
There's also the small matter of the assumption somehow all the Reform vote will head Kemi's way - again, I'm not convinced.
Boris was Teflon for a long time... but the thing about Teflon is it works brilliantly until it starts to break up. The collapse from that moment on is spectacular. Farage may well be covered in a similar fluorocarbon.
There seems to be some new push on social media where Trump and supporters are spinning the bullshit about the US paying for NATO and carrying Europe.
It’s sort of funny they should be doing this on Independence Day when that really came about because they didn’t want to pay taxes to help cover their defence and the costs of the French Indian War. Maybe MaGAs could try and think about that.
My lifelong affection for America is on pause.
Yes, and I am not sure it is coming back. They have elected an imbecile like Trump twice. What does he represent? Corruption, arrogance, patronising tosh. The USA now abuses its erstwhile allies. It abuses countries like Ukraine who should be natural friends. They impose cavalier and irrational penalties like tariffs. With a deeply corrupt and utterly dishonest Supreme Court they have abandoned any interest in the rule of law. To blame all of this on one kleptomaniac is to give the US a pass it frankly does not deserve. We need better friends and more reliable defence. It is time to wave a sad goodbye.
I agree in spades but I'm not quite there yet. If the GOP stays rotten after Donald Trump I will be. By rotten I mean all this braindead nasty stuff that he has exploited and encouraged, I don't mean economically right wing and socially conservative politics. That's just on the whole contrary to what I happen to prefer, it's not a mortal threat to decency and civilisation.
I would like to agree - there is so much that is still wonderful about USA.
But the GOP is so clearly Trump's creature now. Those who, as you say, are economically right wing and socially conservative like Romney have been expunged.
When MTG is your sane voice deciding to call Trump out, I'm not sure there is any way back from them as a party. And given the US is truly a two-party system, I can't see how the Dems don't end up having to follow them down the plug hole (not to say that the Dems are shining beacons on the hill at present).
USA is a brilliant country. I think it's politics might be irredeemable, though.
You're probably right - but I'm giving it till the end of the decade. If Trump Maga gets thrashed in the midterms, don't see the light and get thrashed again in 28, perhaps the boil might be lanced.
I am very impressed by @interested's attempts to mangle the basic economics of supply and demand.
A land value tax would almost certainly lower rents, because it would discourage properties from being left empty.
O level economics if costs go up the supply curve shifts and prices rise.it’s you that is mangling the basic laws of economics
Shall we ask Claude?
"What would the likely impact on rents in the UK be of the introduction of a land value tax?"
To which Claude responded:
"Short answer: standard economic theory predicts that a well-designed land value tax (LVT) shouldn't raise rents at all, and in fact could push them down slightly.
The core theoretical argument Land differs from produced goods (like buildings) because its supply is fixed — you can't create more of it in response to price signals. Standard tax incidence theory says the burden of a tax falls on the side of the market that's least able to adjust quantity. Since landowners can't reduce the supply of land in response to a tax, they can't pass the cost on to tenants through higher rents. The tax gets "capitalized" into a lower land value instead — the landowner absorbs it, roughly one-for-one, through a drop in what the land is worth. This is different from a tax on buildings or improvements (like most property taxes), where supply can shrink over time (less construction, less maintenance), which does tend to get partly passed through to renters. Why it might even push rents down If an LVT replaces less efficient taxes (like taxes on labor, capital, or construction), it removes the disincentive to build. A tax on land value doesn't penalize you for adding a building — unlike a conventional property tax, which taxes the improvement too. So LVT can encourage more intensive use of land (more housing built on it), which increases housing supply and puts downward pressure on rents over time. There's also an argument that LVT discourages land speculation and "warehousing" of vacant or underused sites, since holding unproductive land becomes costlier — again nudging more land into productive (housing) use."
Now, it could be that Claude is mangling basic economics.
Or it could be that you're simply wrong.
Must admit I am surprised. Still seems counter intuitive to me. Why would all landlords accept lower returns and still stay in the market. After all we have seen them exit the market because of the new regulations.
Probably because the return on investment is greater that they could get elsewhere.
Say you can let a £250,000 flat for £1,000 a month. That's a 10% return, and the property appreciates. What else would you do with that quarter of a million?
That's a 5% return, not 10%, and does not include overheads, which are normally substantial.
In practice, from rental income you would aim for about a 3% return on investment over the longer term (it will vary according to expenditure on different items).
If, however, prices rise, you can then realise that and that is when you make the money.
And if they don't, at least you will have a physical asset that is worth something, which is more reliable than a share portfolio.
I am very impressed by @interested's attempts to mangle the basic economics of supply and demand.
A land value tax would almost certainly lower rents, because it would discourage properties from being left empty.
O level economics if costs go up the supply curve shifts and prices rise.it’s you that is mangling the basic laws of economics
Shall we ask Claude?
"What would the likely impact on rents in the UK be of the introduction of a land value tax?"
To which Claude responded:
"Short answer: standard economic theory predicts that a well-designed land value tax (LVT) shouldn't raise rents at all, and in fact could push them down slightly.
The core theoretical argument Land differs from produced goods (like buildings) because its supply is fixed — you can't create more of it in response to price signals. Standard tax incidence theory says the burden of a tax falls on the side of the market that's least able to adjust quantity. Since landowners can't reduce the supply of land in response to a tax, they can't pass the cost on to tenants through higher rents. The tax gets "capitalized" into a lower land value instead — the landowner absorbs it, roughly one-for-one, through a drop in what the land is worth. This is different from a tax on buildings or improvements (like most property taxes), where supply can shrink over time (less construction, less maintenance), which does tend to get partly passed through to renters. Why it might even push rents down If an LVT replaces less efficient taxes (like taxes on labor, capital, or construction), it removes the disincentive to build. A tax on land value doesn't penalize you for adding a building — unlike a conventional property tax, which taxes the improvement too. So LVT can encourage more intensive use of land (more housing built on it), which increases housing supply and puts downward pressure on rents over time. There's also an argument that LVT discourages land speculation and "warehousing" of vacant or underused sites, since holding unproductive land becomes costlier — again nudging more land into productive (housing) use."
Now, it could be that Claude is mangling basic economics.
Or it could be that you're simply wrong.
Must admit I am surprised. Still seems counter intuitive to me. Why would all landlords accept lower returns and still stay in the market. After all we have seen them exit the market because of the new regulations.
Probably because the return on investment is greater that they could get elsewhere.
Say you can let a £250,000 flat for £1,000 a month. That's a 10% return, and the property appreciates. What else would you do with that quarter of a million?
But you have agents fees, maintenance, void periods, electric and gas regulations to complied with, service charges, ground rents, licensing costs, bad debts. You would be doing well to get anywhere near a 5% yield. Yield on Uk equities or gilts look attractive with less hassle and risk.
That's fine though. There's something wrong if you can coin it (good yield plus capital gains) simply by buying and renting out property. That those times seem to be over in many places in the UK is not a mourning matter. It should be an activity where a 'solid but no more' return is possible so long as you do it to a professional standard and always remember that your investment is somebody's home.
Don’t disagree
Well that's popped my balloon. I'll stop chuntering on then.
What a super exchange 🙂
The basic problem is that the cost of creating properties has skyrocketed. We have hit an affordability ceiling in a number of areas. Which has shut down further construction.
Government can build, but must then do one of the following
1) take a loss to provide affordable housing 2) build expensive properties 3) reduce the cost of properties
Yes, high build costs from one end, affordability from the other. A big squeeze.
I would like to see a mix of 1 and 3. And 3 mitigates 1 of course.
Reducing 3 would mean moving to effective regulation, not ever increasing piles of paper that aren’t read.
Are you really prepared for the Neon Fascist Capitalistic Anarchic Hell Hole, where replacing one window only costs £3,000 (say) rather than £18,000? Where you don’t need two separate consultants to write reports on the awesomeness of the window? Reports that will never be read. The window, of course, will never be inspected.
I think we've done this, Malmesbury. A few times. I am no supporter of excessive bureaucracy around windows. Cut through all that nonsense. Build a ton of social housing. That's where I am.
You are talking about destroying a whole industries - offshoots of the Enquiry Industrial Complex. We are talking whole sectors. Ten of billions of pounds.
I am very impressed by @interested's attempts to mangle the basic economics of supply and demand.
A land value tax would almost certainly lower rents, because it would discourage properties from being left empty.
O level economics if costs go up the supply curve shifts and prices rise.it’s you that is mangling the basic laws of economics
Shall we ask Claude?
"What would the likely impact on rents in the UK be of the introduction of a land value tax?"
To which Claude responded:
"Short answer: standard economic theory predicts that a well-designed land value tax (LVT) shouldn't raise rents at all, and in fact could push them down slightly.
The core theoretical argument Land differs from produced goods (like buildings) because its supply is fixed — you can't create more of it in response to price signals. Standard tax incidence theory says the burden of a tax falls on the side of the market that's least able to adjust quantity. Since landowners can't reduce the supply of land in response to a tax, they can't pass the cost on to tenants through higher rents. The tax gets "capitalized" into a lower land value instead — the landowner absorbs it, roughly one-for-one, through a drop in what the land is worth. This is different from a tax on buildings or improvements (like most property taxes), where supply can shrink over time (less construction, less maintenance), which does tend to get partly passed through to renters. Why it might even push rents down If an LVT replaces less efficient taxes (like taxes on labor, capital, or construction), it removes the disincentive to build. A tax on land value doesn't penalize you for adding a building — unlike a conventional property tax, which taxes the improvement too. So LVT can encourage more intensive use of land (more housing built on it), which increases housing supply and puts downward pressure on rents over time. There's also an argument that LVT discourages land speculation and "warehousing" of vacant or underused sites, since holding unproductive land becomes costlier — again nudging more land into productive (housing) use."
Now, it could be that Claude is mangling basic economics.
Or it could be that you're simply wrong.
Must admit I am surprised. Still seems counter intuitive to me. Why would all landlords accept lower returns and still stay in the market. After all we have seen them exit the market because of the new regulations.
Probably because the return on investment is greater that they could get elsewhere.
Say you can let a £250,000 flat for £1,000 a month. That's a 10% return, and the property appreciates. What else would you do with that quarter of a million?
But you have agents fees, maintenance, void periods, electric and gas regulations to complied with, service charges, ground rents, licensing costs, bad debts. You would be doing well to get anywhere near a 5% yield. Yield on Uk equities or gilts look attractive with less hassle and risk.
That's fine though. There's something wrong if you can coin it (good yield plus capital gains) simply by buying and renting out property. That those times seem to be over in many places in the UK is not a mourning matter. It should be an activity where a 'solid but no more' return is possible so long as you do it to a professional standard and always remember that your investment is somebody's home.
Don’t disagree
Well that's popped my balloon. I'll stop chuntering on then.
What a super exchange 🙂
The basic problem is that the cost of creating properties has skyrocketed. We have hit an affordability ceiling in a number of areas. Which has shut down further construction.
Government can build, but must then do one of the following
1) take a loss to provide affordable housing 2) build expensive properties 3) reduce the cost of properties
Yes, high build costs from one end, affordability from the other. A big squeeze.
I would like to see a mix of 1 and 3. And 3 mitigates 1 of course.
Reducing 3 would mean moving to effective regulation, not ever increasing piles of paper that aren’t read.
Are you really prepared for the Neon Fascist Capitalistic Anarchic Hell Hole, where replacing one window only costs £3,000 (say) rather than £18,000? Where you don’t need two separate consultants to write reports on the awesomeness of the window? Reports that will never be read. The window, of course, will never be inspected.
I think we've done this, Malmesbury. A few times. I am no supporter of excessive bureaucracy around windows. Cut through all that nonsense. Build a ton of social housing. That's where I am.
You are talking about destroying a whole industries - offshoots of the Enquiry Industrial Complex. We are talking whole sectors. Ten of billions of pounds.
They can retrain as social media influencers.
Retrain as solid fuel for rockets. I wonder what the ISP of a lawyer is...
Revealed: Nigel Farage secretly funded by convicted criminal
The Reform UK leader did not declare benefits including staff, security and housing by crypto-gambler George Cottrell, our investigation reveals
...Farage appears to have broken MPs’ rules by failing to declare that Cottrell provided funding for his operation in the year before his election.
We can also reveal that:
• The Reform leader received “in kind” benefits ranging from his back office to his private security, staff, transport and accommodation. • Cottrell recruited and paid three staff to transform Farage’s social media presence, producing content on immigration, human rights law and political correctness, and that promoted Reform. • Cottrell has been involved in a crypto-gambling platform implicated in illegal betting in the UK. • Two men — a friend of Cottrell’s and a Reform employee — owned UK companies which allowed illicit payments originally from or destined for the platform, which did not have a legally required UK licence. • Since the election Cottrell has let Farage use a five-storey house he rents on a street near Buckingham Palace. His lawyer said: “As a close friend, our client did, and does, allow Mr Farage to stay in our client’s rental property.” • The convict has applied for a presidential pardon in the US, where he pleaded guilty to wire fraud. • Cottrell received an £8.5 million Chelsea property from the billionaire Reform treasurer Nick Candy in the last year. Land Registry documents say the price paid was zero. Candy said Cottrell paid him by buying shares in an offshore Guernsey company but would not specify the value of the transaction.
The code of conduct says MPs must disclose any benefit which “might reasonably be thought by others to influence [their] actions or words” on their register of interests. Its “overall aim” is to protect democracy by upholding the highest levels of transparency.
It says MPs must declare any gifts, benefits and hospitality” received in the year preceding their election and which relate “in any way” to their “political activities”. The exception is “purely personal” gifts, such as presents from family. Even then, the code says “both the possible motive of the giver and the use [of the gift] should be considered”, clarifying: “If there is any doubt, the benefit should be registered.”
Having been teflon for so long I am starting to think that Farage's corruption may finally have destroyed him. How will Reform fare without him?
What is increasingly certain is that Reform are not going to form or lead the next government and Farage is finished. And there is an end to major figures leaping to Reform from the Tories. And figures like Kruger and Montgomerie are looking wan and sad.
Reform are likely to collapse. How many of their erstwhile supporters go to Kemi and how many to Restore? Might decide the largest party after the next election.
Have to say while I accept for Conservatives like you and @algarkirk the end of Reform can't come soon enough, the fact remains they are still leading the polls and winning local council by-election seats including from the Conservatives.
People have written off Farage and rather like (you can add your own analogy), he keeps coming back. Perhaps this time he will be done but I'm not convinced.
There's also the small matter of the assumption somehow all the Reform vote will head Kemi's way - again, I'm not convinced.
All the reform vote will not return to the conservatives but some will and it depends on how many
Straws in the wind of conservatives rowing in behind Kemi, with Rees Mogg this week and interestingly Kemi receiving advice from previous conservative pms [ not Truss] and leaders including Cameron and Boris
Three years to go and a lot of ground to make up but I do expect Kemi to crossover with reform in the next 12 months
"All the reform vote will not return to the conservatives"
That's partly because a lot of it didn't come from the Conservatives in the first place. Both ex-Labour and ex-non-voters make up the ranks.
So a Reform collapse should give Labour a boost too, albeit smaller than the Tory boost.
https://www.opinium.com/resource-center/voting-intention-17th-june-2026/ Reform UK continues to lead voting intention on 27%, despite falling two points since earlier this month. Labour remains on 20%, while the Conservatives have edged up to 18%. The Greens stand on 14% and the Liberal Democrats on 12%.
Revealed: Nigel Farage secretly funded by convicted criminal
The Reform UK leader did not declare benefits including staff, security and housing by crypto-gambler George Cottrell, our investigation reveals
...Farage appears to have broken MPs’ rules by failing to declare that Cottrell provided funding for his operation in the year before his election.
We can also reveal that:
• The Reform leader received “in kind” benefits ranging from his back office to his private security, staff, transport and accommodation. • Cottrell recruited and paid three staff to transform Farage’s social media presence, producing content on immigration, human rights law and political correctness, and that promoted Reform. • Cottrell has been involved in a crypto-gambling platform implicated in illegal betting in the UK. • Two men — a friend of Cottrell’s and a Reform employee — owned UK companies which allowed illicit payments originally from or destined for the platform, which did not have a legally required UK licence. • Since the election Cottrell has let Farage use a five-storey house he rents on a street near Buckingham Palace. His lawyer said: “As a close friend, our client did, and does, allow Mr Farage to stay in our client’s rental property.” • The convict has applied for a presidential pardon in the US, where he pleaded guilty to wire fraud. • Cottrell received an £8.5 million Chelsea property from the billionaire Reform treasurer Nick Candy in the last year. Land Registry documents say the price paid was zero. Candy said Cottrell paid him by buying shares in an offshore Guernsey company but would not specify the value of the transaction.
The code of conduct says MPs must disclose any benefit which “might reasonably be thought by others to influence [their] actions or words” on their register of interests. Its “overall aim” is to protect democracy by upholding the highest levels of transparency.
It says MPs must declare any gifts, benefits and hospitality” received in the year preceding their election and which relate “in any way” to their “political activities”. The exception is “purely personal” gifts, such as presents from family. Even then, the code says “both the possible motive of the giver and the use [of the gift] should be considered”, clarifying: “If there is any doubt, the benefit should be registered.”
Having been teflon for so long I am starting to think that Farage's corruption may finally have destroyed him. How will Reform fare without him?
What is increasingly certain is that Reform are not going to form or lead the next government and Farage is finished. And there is an end to major figures leaping to Reform from the Tories. And figures like Kruger and Montgomerie are looking wan and sad.
Reform are likely to collapse. How many of their erstwhile supporters go to Kemi and how many to Restore? Might decide the largest party after the next election.
Have to say while I accept for Conservatives like you and @algarkirk the end of Reform can't come soon enough, the fact remains they are still leading the polls and winning local council by-election seats including from the Conservatives.
People have written off Farage and rather like (you can add your own analogy), he keeps coming back. Perhaps this time he will be done but I'm not convinced.
There's also the small matter of the assumption somehow all the Reform vote will head Kemi's way - again, I'm not convinced.
I am not assuming that, which is why I mentioned Restore. And I am not really a Tory these days or even for some time. But I do share the view that if Farage is driven out of Parliament by his failures to declare (which looks likely) Reform are likely to implode.
I think there's a lot of potential support for Restore out there.
While few say it openly, I suspect a party advocating the mass deportation of non-white, non-Christian people will have more support than many of us would imagine.
Comments
It’s sort of funny they should be doing this on Independence Day when that really came about because they didn’t want to pay taxes to help cover their defence and the costs of the French Indian War. Maybe MaGAs could try and think about that.
(I'm looking at the Colonials across the pond too!)
Re grift, Farage ought to have a massively bigger problem since it's on a massively bigger scale. But let's see. Here's hoping.
Morocco are cheating barstewards and Oliver is buying it.
Well done to all the Brits involved in the USA250 celebrations.
https://x.com/thenewarea51/status/2073423668076478926
https://x.com/theextrememusi1/status/2073187534130106866
Sadly, due to time zones, some of us have to go to bed shortly, but one suspects there’s about to be a million videos of the greatest birthday party of all time.
What a super exchange 🙂
Government can build, but must then do one of the following
1) take a loss to provide affordable housing
2) build expensive properties
3) reduce the cost of properties
Government can build, but must then do one of the following
1) take a loss to provide affordable housing
2) build expensive properties
3) reduce the cost of properties
I would like to see a mix of 1 and 3. And 3 mitigates 1 of course.
I think that Trump has broken that little bubble.
Oligopolistic developers aren't much better either.
Self-build is the clear, screaming, obvious answer, as in most of continental Europe, e.g. Austria where 80% of new houses are self-built, compared to 10% in the UK, half of which are in Northern Ireland.
That way the person who builds the thing has at least some interest in its quality and visual appeal
The argument is if you add more dwellings into existing communities that puts pressure on both kinds of infrastructure - the "hard", such as pipes, sewage, cables, wires etc and the "soft" -medical and transport capacities, schools and perhaps crime. Existing residents want some kind of if not guarantee then reassurance they won't be the losers if thousands of new dwellings are added to their area.
You can turn a deaf ear as many on here do and call it "NIMBY" but the truth is settled communities are concerned by the possible addition of considerable numbers of new properties without their consent.
I suspect they get there the hidden way via 30% cumulative inflation over a decade rather than the sticker prices moving much.
People should not need consent to self build within the law on their own land.
Its not their land and not their place.
People in the country deserve somewhere to live. Whether others like it or not.
A fine afternoon visiting the 90 year old Godmother in Sheffield, including a strange, baroque diversion as the A617 is closed, a big fish n chips n peas for £10.50 - not the most inexpensive but very, very good, a visit to the street where my mum lived in the 1940s-1960s, and a feeling that Sheffield has let its transport arrangements degrade over time. I think decreased prioritisation of buses is a serious question, and that there is a problem with the tram network.
And my Godmother reports a friend of the family who had the wrong leg amputated a couple of weeks ago. She is very compos mentis, and still plays Scrabble every week, but I am really not sure about that one without a horse's mouth account.
And watching the cricket whilst talking of horses, I really did think at first glance that there was a Test cricketer called Horseshit, which is so necessary that he should change his name accordingly.
You don't have to build - you can leave it until you are ready to build but normally most people are quick to go in and build what will fit on their piece of land which does a lot to limit what you can do.
I think there's a similar story to be told in other areas, but I really don't know the facts.
Are you really prepared for the Neon Fascist Capitalistic Anarchic Hell Hole, where replacing one window only costs £3,000 (say) rather than £18,000? Where you don’t need two separate consultants to write reports on the awesomeness of the window? Reports that will never be read. The window, of course, will never be inspected.
Secondly, LVT encourages financial maximising of land. But the fun and gaiety of nations relies on there being uses of land which don't maximise commercial potential. Lords or The Oval might do better as skyscrapers, but London would be less fun. Ditto Westminster Abbey. LVT can encourage a Gradgrind approach to things.
There's a plan to put 700 dwellings on a brownfield site near me - now, I'm not wholly opposed but I'm entitled to ask even if you don't think it's "my place" how that many new homes and people will impact on the existing community. An example, there will be little or no parking provided but as we know people will still come with cars and will try to find places to park and that will cause issues with existing residents.
I realise there's a national need to provide housing - I think at the moment there are a glut of homes trying to be sold but even at the slightly reduced prices on offer, there aren't many takers and to look at the other side of the coin, for a lot of people their home is their principal asset (rightly or wrongly). They won't be happy to see that depreciate by 10-20% so you may well see a lot of people simply holding on and waiting for the market to turn and what is the point for developers if they can't realise construction costs at the end of the process?
The Reform UK leader did not declare benefits including staff, security and housing by crypto-gambler George Cottrell, our investigation reveals
...Farage appears to have broken MPs’ rules by failing to declare that Cottrell provided funding for his operation in the year before his election.
We can also reveal that:
• The Reform leader received “in kind” benefits ranging from his back office to his private security, staff, transport and accommodation.
• Cottrell recruited and paid three staff to transform Farage’s social media presence, producing content on immigration, human rights law and political correctness, and that promoted Reform.
• Cottrell has been involved in a crypto-gambling platform implicated in illegal betting in the UK.
• Two men — a friend of Cottrell’s and a Reform employee — owned UK companies which allowed illicit payments originally from or destined for the platform, which did not have a legally required UK licence.
• Since the election Cottrell has let Farage use a five-storey house he rents on a street near Buckingham Palace. His lawyer said: “As a close friend, our client did, and does, allow Mr Farage to stay in our client’s rental property.”
• The convict has applied for a presidential pardon in the US, where he pleaded guilty to wire fraud.
• Cottrell received an £8.5 million Chelsea property from the billionaire Reform treasurer Nick Candy in the last year. Land Registry documents say the price paid was zero. Candy said Cottrell paid him by buying shares in an offshore Guernsey company but would not specify the value of the transaction.
The code of conduct says MPs must disclose any benefit which “might reasonably be thought by others to influence [their] actions or words” on their register of interests. Its “overall aim” is to protect democracy by upholding the highest levels of transparency.
It says MPs must declare any gifts, benefits and hospitality” received in the year preceding their election and which relate “in any way” to their “political activities”. The exception is “purely personal” gifts, such as presents from family. Even then, the code says “both the possible motive of the giver and the use [of the gift] should be considered”, clarifying: “If there is any doubt, the benefit should be registered.”
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/revealed-nigel-farage-secretly-funded-by-convicted-criminal-j0brtrlnk
Just met this couple by Hammersmith bridge.
Caption please
Cottrell was raised and educated
on the private island of Mustique,
before attending Malvern College,
from which he was expelled
for illegal gambling.
The last two lines show that there must be some good in the man.
Its easy to recognise a need to provide housing, but think it should be provided somewhere else.
There simply is factually not a glut of homes trying to be sold - the proportion of homes that are vacant is incredibly low. People holding on because they want more money than it is worth does not make a glut.
There are many homes being built around here, I live in a new build in a newly developed area, and homes are not left unoccupied for long.
Developers can and do realise construction costs. Indeed well above construction costs - much of the cost of housing is not construction costs, but rather land costs. Land with permission gets an extra 0 on its value over land without. Eliminate that differential and the cost of new construction could come down considerably.
I'm surprised Vanilla's anti-spam doesn't block a comment whose entire body is a URL.
If you're an established poster then it usually won't, if you're a newbie and your first few posts are just links then it puts them in the spam trap.
Reform won't flourish without Farage.
But the GOP is so clearly Trump's creature now. Those who, as you say, are economically right wing and socially conservative like Romney have been expunged.
When MTG is your sane voice deciding to call Trump out, I'm not sure there is any way back from them as a party. And given the US is truly a two-party system, I can't see how the Dems don't end up having to follow them down the plug hole (not to say that the Dems are shining beacons on the hill at present).
USA is a brilliant country. I think it's politics might be irredeemable, though.
A man of the people indeed.
A pro-motorist party would have a USP at the next elections which I think are next May, and would be likely to do very well.
Labour 20 [-1]
Conservative 19 [+2]
Highest Conservative vote share since April 2025
Personally, I think that the incidence will mainly be on the occupier - because the total annual cost of renting a house is unlikely to drop below the total annual cost of being an owner occupier. Owner occupiers will cop for LVT, thus increasing the total cost of being an owner occupier, and supply and demand will therefore adjust the total cost of renting to a similar offset to present.
More practically, how does LVT interact with planning permission, as planning permission, or even the possibility of obtaining planning permission radically alters land value - are we taking the "core" value, as if everything is an acre of average grassland? Are we taking current market value? Do we value land with an industrial building on it at the value of farmland, land with planning for an industrial building, or land which might get in the future planning for housing?
If LVT is just a flat rate for acreage, it's mainly going to be paid by farmers. But that isn't going to fly except at a very low rate because realistically we can't fund most government spending by taxing the farmers.
If LVT is based on the land's planning status, then we're back to the problem that "improving" the land by getting planning immediately bumps the value of land and thus back to economic disincentives for development.
Possibly we could just exclude agricultural land from the tax completely, then flat rate everything else, but that risks introducing a load of perverse incentives too (I forget if the enterprising people who were trying to get their empty industrial building removed from business rates by farming snails in it were successful or not!).
It's a nice idea in theory, but I think in practice it would probably lead to as many peverse outcomes as stamp duty, business rates and council tax create now.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jul/04/us-history-destruction
A thought provoking polemic
One of the problems in my part of East London is there is no greenfield - the only spare space is brownfield and often contaminated brownfield. The development near me is on a site with a gas holder - NOT one of the original ones such as at Bromley by Bow but a post-war addition after the original was destroyed by the Luftwaffe.
The land is also contaminated having been used by National Grid to dump spoil from other sites so the remediation time and costs have to be factored into the project and the timescale is compromised by the need to carry all this out in advance of construction.
This is not atypical of urban brownfield and is part of why construction costs are so high. I don't even think 700 homes will cover the costs and the developers may press for more properties but we'll see.
The world of greenfield development is no doubt entirely different - I don't know.
As for the market itself, I can only speak as I find - it used to be a very active rental market in East Ham given the transient nature of the population but a glut of ex-rental properties has come on to the market and mixed with the normal warp and weft of properties being sold has led to a stagnation in prices. The bigger landlords can only take so many and the new brownfield developments here are shared ownership or rental. Newham want to make the new brownfield development near me 75% affordable housing.
Reform UK continues to lead voting intention on 26%. Labour is on 20%, while the Conservatives rise to 19% (their highest score since April 2025). The Greens stand on 14% and the Liberal Democrats on 11%.
https://www.opinium.com/resource-center/voting-intention-17th-june-2026/
Reform UK continues to lead voting intention on 27%, despite falling two points since earlier this month. Labour remains on 20%, while the Conservatives have edged up to 18%. The Greens stand on 14% and the Liberal Democrats on 12%.
https://www.opinium.com/resource-center/voting-intention-3rd-june-2026/
Reform UK leads voting intention on 29%, up two points since last month. This is the highest Reform share since early March. Labour remains on 20%, while the Conservatives are on 17%. The Greens stand on 14% and the Liberal Democrats on 11%.
https://www.opinium.com/resource-center/voting-intention-20th-may-2026/
Reform UK continues to lead national voting intention on 27%, followed by Labour on 20% and the Conservatives on 18%. The Greens stand on 15%, while the Liberal Democrats are on 12%.
People have written off Farage and rather like (you can add your own analogy), he keeps coming back. Perhaps this time he will be done but I'm not convinced.
There's also the small matter of the assumption somehow all the Reform vote will head Kemi's way - again, I'm not convinced.
Thanks for posting, though - it's more interesting than the scripts.
While few say it openly, I suspect a party advocating the mass deportation of non-white, non-Christian people will have more support than many of us would imagine.
Straws in the wind of conservatives rowing in behind Kemi, with Rees Mogg this week and interestingly Kemi receiving advice from previous conservative pms [ not Truss] and leaders including Cameron and Boris
Three years to go and a lot of ground to make up but I do expect Kemi to crossover with reform in the next 12 months
'Andy Burnham makes his first appearance in our leader approval tracker.
He starts on net -7, just behind:
🔶 Davey -5
🌳 Badenoch -6
...and ahead of:
🌍 Polanski -17
➡️ Farage -19
❌ Starmer -43'
https://x.com/OpiniumResearch/status/2073485746867208626?s=20
In practice, from rental income you would aim for about a 3% return on investment over the longer term (it will vary according to expenditure on different items).
If, however, prices rise, you can then realise that and that is when you make the money.
And if they don't, at least you will have a physical asset that is worth something, which is more reliable than a share portfolio.
That's partly because a lot of it didn't come from the Conservatives in the first place. Both ex-Labour and ex-non-voters make up the ranks.
So a Reform collapse should give Labour a boost too, albeit smaller than the Tory boost.
Reform 26 [-1]
Labour 20 [0]
Conservative 19 [+1]
...or am I missing something?
https://www.opinium.com/resource-center/voting-intention-1st-july-2026/
Reform UK continues to lead voting intention on 26%. Labour is on 20%, while the Conservatives rise to 19% (their highest score since April 2025). The Greens stand on 14% and the Liberal Democrats on 11%.
https://www.opinium.com/resource-center/voting-intention-17th-june-2026/
Reform UK continues to lead voting intention on 27%, despite falling two points since earlier this month. Labour remains on 20%, while the Conservatives have edged up to 18%. The Greens stand on 14% and the Liberal Democrats on 12%.