Skip to content

But that’s not really why I am writing this post. The reason for that is to highlight that this issue arises from microeconomic concerns. Macroeconomically, and thinking in the long term that this requires, the signal is clear: it is that the time for a strong, collective landlord with access to funds to provide stability in the housing market is required.

For a long time, I have suggested that changes to ISA and pension laws could provide more than £100 billion of funding a year for a Green New Deal and other socially necessary projects. Funding that strong collective landlord would be one such socially necessary project. And who would not want to know that their savings were actually being used for a socially useful purpose rather than being speculated on the stock exchange for the sole purpose of enriching someone in the financial services sector?

People buying houses with their own money to rent out is bad, very bad. Using everyone’s money to buy all the housing to rent out is good, very good.

13 thoughts on “Snigger”

  1. Bloke in North Dorset

    And who would not want to know that their savings were actually being used for a socially useful purpose rather than being speculated on the stock exchange for the sole purpose of enriching someone in the financial services sector?

    Me, now f*** off.

    I want my savings getting the best possible return commensurate with my risk profile. The state took more than half my earning throughout my working life and I don’t need lefty twats telling me that I should agree with their definition of socially useful, which usually involves lining their pockets.

  2. He’s such a cretin. He thinks giving government access to funds means they’ll spend it on something “worthy” without realising that it would be whichever government of the day was in power that got to decide what was worthy and “socially worthwhile”.

  3. Theophrastus (2066)

    “…a strong, collective landlord with access to funds to provide stability in the housing market…”

    That sounds so Soviet Union.

  4. Was just at one of the public housing areas of Minneapolis. I remember when they built up the area with federal money – it was actually quite beautiful when new. Clean designs, nice outdoor areas. Now it’s a slum. Broken structures, trash blowing around, dead trees, dead cars, ripped-down fences, doors hanging askew, windows broken . . .

    That’s what your friend wants to build with your money.

  5. The whole point of a pension is provide income in the future. What income would future-me get from these slumstates the government wants to build with my money? Observation shows they are invariably a money sink not a revenue earner.

  6. Bloke in the Fourth Reich

    Would, perchance, the National Housing Service need a fat controller?

    Does spud have anyone in mind for the role?

  7. It always comes down to confiscating other peoples hard earned by force and doing something he deems more worthy, doesn’t it?

    Fuck right off.

  8. Well, he can go fuck himself and the horse he rode in on. Mrs Ltw and I are moving to Mildura in January to our own formerly rented out place. Rent and availability in Melbourne is getting worse. We haven’t been kicked out yet but it’s only a matter of time. And the rules are changing further against landlords. Time to switch back from tenant to owner occupier I think. Our landlady has been trying to sell for two years but investors are staying out of the market until the picture is clearer. Property values going down, rents going up.

    Which under Spud’s plan we couldn’t do, we’d probably have apply for permission to move and meanwhile my retirement savings would be funding it! There are similar ideas floating round in Oz.

  9. I’m no economist, so I do wonder: what would the effect be, on house prices and the housing market generally, of specifically earmarking an extra £100bn every year to be spent on buying properties?

  10. In fairness to him (and that’s not something you’ll see me often write) while he is in favour of expropriation of all manner of property, he’s hardly alone in that. The goal is to remove private property (at least private housing to start with). That’s openly advocated by the WEF and UN. ‘You will own nothing and be happy’ isn’t just some slogan – it’s what drives the entire worldview of the committed globalists who run this (and most other) countries. In some ways he is ‘ahead of the curve’ and kicking at an open door.

  11. Was just at one of the public housing areas of Minneapolis. I remember when they built up the area with federal money – it was actually quite beautiful when new. Clean designs, nice outdoor areas. Now it’s a slum. Broken structures, trash blowing around, dead trees, dead cars, ripped-down fences, doors hanging askew, windows broken . . .

    cf Belly Rave (Gladiator-at-Law, Pohl & Kornbluth). Published almost 60 years ago – nothing changes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *