Election Year or Fear!

[Andy_Faber]

Not sure about ‘consensus’ or otherwise, AF.
It seems a bit personal and maybe in need of further explanation, at least as far as the ‘landlords’ one is concerned.
Would agree about the police and the NHS although the latter (probably both) need more funding imo.
Think I largely agree on 4.
Why £250k limit and why only ‘public body’ executive pay?

Put another way, I don’t understand the landlord one even though I was briefly a landlord about 12/13 years ago and had no problem at all.
Beyond that, if you’re arguing for greater support for public services (specifically the NHS and the police), people suffering from cancer having priority over those who desire a boob job and greater responsibility and pay restraint to be shown by the most wealthy…then you have my support.

P.S. Completely agree with MA about ‘harassing’ unscrupulous landlords.

No argument about increased funding for NHS and Police, but to give a fairly benign example regarding the police, I'm sure I'm not the only motorist who suspects that the number of police attending (even minor) motor accidents is a bit 'moth to a flame'. I recently queued over an hour getting less than a mile up the M1 due to an accident under the J27 bridge, and counted 11 officers chatting yet none at the top of the J27 ramp exercising a simple bit of traffic management that could have resolved the pressure. I could offer other examples, both motor-related and not

The 250k was just a number plucked from the ether, the public body only was because (you and) I pay for the ****ers

[MadAmster]

The current right of centre Dutch outgoing Cabinet (still in situ until such time as a coalition has been formed) has just put a new Bill to Parliament. It's aim is to reduce private rents. They have gone up incredibly over the past 10 to 15 years. To the extent that, especially in medium sized towns to the bigger cities, there is a dearth of affordable housing, be that to rent or to buy. Nurses, doctors, teachers etc, none of whom are in the worst paid jobs, can't afford to rent/buy where they work.

Why has that happened? It started with "investors" wishing to go "buy to let", buying up properties, wholesale. They were gazumping 1st time buyers. 300K houses were going for between 350k and 400k. Prospective "buy to live"'ers could not outbid the gazumpers who then, perfectly naturally in a business sense, upped the rent they were asking to account for the extra they'd paid so as to not damage their annual yield. It didn't help that government (national and local) allowed Housing Associations to sell off some of their older stock of social housing in order to build new social housing. Then, after the sale, the new plans were submitted for approval and, for reasons such as too much nitrogen in the soil, permission was denied. Some plans did make it through where developers were proposing mixed housing availability. In one development there would be low cost rentals, low cost buys, midrange buys and some top end stuff. The developers were hoping to compensate for the low cost stuff via the midrange ones and the profit would be in the top end market. The problem was there was insufficient demand for the expensive builds so the project never got built.

Local councils have (not all I would add, but a fair few), put a stop to the buy to let market by ensuring that buyers live at least 5 years in a property before they are allowed to rent it out. This has seen a downturn in house prices in those areas. People can buy, rents are proportional to buying costs and the "market" is doing its job in keeping housing costs, be they buy or rent, at more reasonable levels.

Would this work in the UK? No idea but, IMO, it wouldn't hurt to try.

At the last but one election, Wybren van Haga got into Parliament via one of the more right wing parties (Forum voor Democratie) and was one of 12 MPs they had. In no time the FvD started to haemorrhage MPs who formed splinter groups. FvD was down to 3 (the number they still have following the recent election) and van Haga was one of 3 BVNL MPs. BVNL now has zero MPs. Van Haga owns a raft of flats/houses and is not known as being a popular landlord. Both FvD and BVNL are very right wing. Doubt the Holocaust, are full of conspiracy theories and very much in favour of the rich elite remaining exactly that. They have also said the moon landings never took place and they love Putin.

[ramAnag]

No argument about increased funding for NHS and Police, but to give a fairly benign example regarding the police, I'm sure I'm not the only motorist who suspects that the number of police attending (even minor) motor accidents is a bit 'moth to a flame'. I recently queued over an hour getting less than a mile up the M1 due to an accident under the J27 bridge, and counted 11 officers chatting yet none at the top of the J27 ramp exercising a simple bit of traffic management that could have resolved the pressure. I could offer other examples, both motor-related and not

The 250k was just a number plucked from the ether, the public body only was because (you and) I pay for the ****ers

There you go…agreement on the NHS and my own, less ‘benign’, experience leads me to have no difficulty in recognising your police example.

The £250k you say was picked at random so it’s a bit meaningless…all I’ll say is that…do we not pay for those who are extraordinarily well paid in the private sector too?
I ask this because someone I know well has recently moved from being employed by a private company to being self employed. This came about as a result of the pandemic and I admire his bravery and determination enormously. What I am concerned about however is the number of ‘tax and other’ benefits that now come his way as a member of the self employed ‘class’. I don’t consider myself as naive but I was surprised at the level of these ‘extras’ and are we not, indirectly, paying for these ‘benefits’ too?

[Andy_Faber]

The current right of centre Dutch outgoing Cabinet (still in situ until such time as a coalition has been formed) has just put a new Bill to Parliament. It's aim is to reduce private rents. They have gone up incredibly over the past 10 to 15 years. To the extent that, especially in medium sized towns to the bigger cities, there is a dearth of affordable housing, be that to rent or to buy. Nurses, doctors, teachers etc, none of whom are in the worst paid jobs, can't afford to rent/buy where they work.

Why has that happened? It started with "investors" wishing to go "buy to let", buying up properties, wholesale. They were gazumping 1st time buyers. 300K houses were going for between 350k and 400k. Prospective "buy to live"'ers could not outbid the gazumpers who then, perfectly naturally in a business sense, upped the rent they were asking to account for the extra they'd paid so as to not damage their annual yield. It didn't help that government (national and local) allowed Housing Associations to sell off some of their older stock of social housing in order to build new social housing. Then, after the sale, the new plans were submitted for approval and, for reasons such as too much nitrogen in the soil, permission was denied. Some plans did make it through where developers were proposing mixed housing availability. In one development there would be low cost rentals, low cost buys, midrange buys and some top end stuff. The developers were hoping to compensate for the low cost stuff via the midrange ones and the profit would be in the top end market. The problem was there was insufficient demand for the expensive builds so the project never got built.

Local councils have (not all I would add, but a fair few), put a stop to the buy to let market by ensuring that buyers live at least 5 years in a property before they are allowed to rent it out. This has seen a downturn in house prices in those areas. People can buy, rents are proportional to buying costs and the "market" is doing its job in keeping housing costs, be they buy or rent, at more reasonable levels.

Would this work in the UK? No idea but, IMO, it wouldn't hurt to try.

I can only quote back on my experience in commercial property management, and those who buy properties 'wholesale' tend to be looking for return over decades, so wouldn't be especially bothered about such a 'fallow period' law. And then of course, if a 'bulk buyer' business model accounted for that fallow period, it just makes the situation worse for prospective tenants, who go from only having expensive choices to having no choices at all

[Andy_Faber]

There you go…agreement on the NHS and my own, less ‘benign’, experience leads me to have no difficulty in recognising your police example.

The £250k you say was picked at random so it’s a bit meaningless…all I’ll say is that…do we not pay for those who are extraordinarily well paid in the private sector too?
I ask this because someone I know well has recently moved from being employed by a private company to being self employed. This came about as a result of the pandemic and I admire his bravery and determination enormously. What I am concerned about however is the number of ‘tax and other’ benefits that now come his way as a member of the self employed ‘class’. I don’t consider myself as naive but I was surprised at the level of these ‘extras’ and are we not, indirectly, paying for these ‘benefits’ too?

OK, three times the PM's salary. But I gave that in a recent discussion and was told it was too much! I'm talking principles not absolutes.

An easy to explain reason for limiting things to public sector seniors is that most of them are a local or national monopoly, or close to. I can choose who to buy my milk off, but I can't choose who to buy my water off is a clear example. And I simply don't believe the talent pool for executives is so small that those chosen deserve such enourmous payouts. The argument is always that capping salaries would result in a 'talent drain' but I personally think, using a very non-corporate phrase, thats a load of *******s

[MadAmster]

Just thought of another benefit of salary caps on employees of publicly funded companies.... Gaz Lineker wouldn't be on anything like £1.5M a year or whatever he's on now.

... until that is, TV actors, commentators, pundits etc got smart, as they did over here and started working for independent programme makers and then selling the programme to the NOS (Dutch equivalent of BBC) companies at a price the makers deemed the "product" was worth. The state broadcaster was no longer paying "Lineker" a salary but buying a product from an independent producer who then pay "Lineker" et al the exorbitant salary he/they want. Workarounds and bypasses appear to be merely temporary "fixes".

[Andy_Faber]

Just thought of another benefit of salary caps on employees of publicly funded companies.... Gaz Lineker wouldn't be on anything like £1.5M a year or whatever he's on now.

... until that is, TV actors, commentators, pundits etc got smart, as they did over here and started working for independent programme makers and then selling the programme to the NOS (Dutch equivalent of BBC) companies at a price the makers deemed the "product" was worth. The state broadcaster was no longer paying "Lineker" a salary but buying a product from an independent producer who then pay "Lineker" et al the exorbitant salary he/they want. Workarounds and bypasses appear to be merely temporary "fixes".

Easy answer. Only pay salaried employees. Use the talent pool. If that’s too difficult, work out an equivalence which represents ‘cost to the enterprise’, so that, for instance, a salaried Lineker cost the BBC the same as Lineker PLC

[MadAmster]

Easy answer. Only pay salaried employees. Use the talent pool. If that’s too difficult, work out an equivalence which represents ‘cost to the enterprise’, so that, for instance, a salaried Lineker cost the BBC the same as Lineker PLC

Would that only work if Lineker PLC was selling the product directly to the BBC and not if Lineker sells his "talents" to Fox Toffee Spur Enetrtainment PLC who then sell the programme to the BBC?

[Andy_Faber]

Would that only work if Lineker PLC was selling the product directly to the BBC and not if Lineker sells his "talents" to Fox Toffee Spur Enetrtainment PLC who then sell the programme to the BBC?

What I’m suggesting is none of that matters if the cost to the licence payer is the same

[MadAmster]

What I’m suggesting is none of that matters if the cost to the licence payer is the same

... but it would if Lineker only got 200K a year from the BBC?