p2p ISA

(Mod hat off)

Rant away, but it's like shouting at the weather. Were not the only country with low interest rates and multiple taxes on the same income. (You didn't mention vat on purchases or the insanity of its application - none to pay on children's clothing or dentures for example).
I also hate the idea that our country is so deeply in debt that we're reduced to arguing only about how fast we descend even more deeply into debt and whether that rate of descent is prudent or imprudent economics as well.
But again we're not alone in that respect when you look round the world - even the most economically powerful country in the world is trying to grapple with an eye watering pile of debt.
My point is you can shout at any individual that is daft enough to stand up and pretend they have the solution but they really don't have very much more influence on macro economics than they did over the umbra and penumbra that recently clipped our isle. Their job is all about getting us to argue about the position of the deck chairs so we don't notice that they're all sliding slowly in the same direction down the deck.
Oh now look, I've gone and depressed myself, I think I'll go outside and smile at the sun while it's out.

The last Labour government introduced a 10% tax rate, bungled its abolition and have had the bright idea of re-introducing it - showing either a lack of any better ideas of a fear of announcing them.

Somewhere, among all the posturing by the puffed up tiny intellects which govern us there are a few good ideas. What is missing is the bold transformational policy needed to reform housing, manufacturing, transport and health. None of the main parties have had the courage to promote a real national discussion on where we might be in 10 years time.

A few examples

  The fuel duty escalator was introduced as a 'Green' policy to reduce carbon emissions. It was rendered unnecessary by high oil prices and frozen. The fall in oil prices gave leeway for a fuel tax increase which should have been taken.

  Help to buy or need to build?  subsidizing first time buyers drives up prices making buying even harder down the road. Building lots of houses lowers prices and rents, so loses votes, but it could be done.

  The current NHS is unsustainable in the long term and is failing in many areas. A major discussion, inquiry or conversation is needed to build a long lasting health framework, agreed by all parties, which completely removes health from politics. 




 

You've got my vote.

The votes you don't have are those who work in the NHS who believe that if nothing changes they can continue like this forever, nimbies and all those who have money (or debt) associated with a property already who think they can continue like this forever, and fuel users who don't think beyond the price of the next tankfull.

That's an awful lot of status quo.

As the Russians N.Koreans and Chinese will confirm, even when your government does have the power to make changes unhindered by the proletariat, it rarely turns out well.

"Help to buy or need to build? subsidizing first time buyers drives up prices making buying even harder down the road. Building lots of houses lowers prices and rents, so loses votes, but it could be done."

Agreed. So does government policy of vastly increasing the population, especially London.

You also forgot about foreign buyers, a lot of it Asian, buying up big chunks of new London developments, often leaving them empty to appreciate.

I suppose you need to take a bit of risk these days in the likes of RS, with 7% on 5 year loans, and property and equity.. There is always pensioner bonds that are risk free.

Once upon a time the public sector built affordable housing. At current low interest rates funding would be easily available for major housing programs and associated apprenticeships.  The houses could initially be rented, this would reduce the subsidies paid to BTL landlords who would eventually put their rental stock onto the market. A right to buy option after 5 years tenancy might work. My point is not really to try to outguess the experts, just to suggest that the public sector is entitled to step in to correct market failure where taxpayers carry the costs associated with housing poverty. 

I think that you are wrong. Though I think that we need that many homes every 18 months. There is pretty good competition between developers. If they know there is more supply in a few years, they won't hang on too long. I doubt people on the equivalent of minimum wage have ever been able to buy.

I think that you are wrong. They have to finance these developments, for example look at Wellesley or Assetz Capital, empty for a year is not good; many will be under pressure to sell. If they are bought by buy to let then rents will fall which might help people on lower incomes. If the Russians and Chinese buy some then we should build more.

I think that you are wrong. The problem is that there hasn't been enough supply for the last 20 years. 250k+ houses per year commutable to London plus another 50k-100k near other large cities and after a few years the problem would improve.

Even if prices didn't fall, as long as they don't go up with wages the situation will improve. Even with an active house building programme this would take at least ten years to sort out and as others have said the politicians have no stomach to fight the nimbies.