Labour Manifesto – Attack on the PRS

Reply to the comment left by Whiteskifreak Surrey at 22/11/2019 - 12:14
THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED - USING A BEER ANALOGY
8 April 2016
Esme Shakeshaft
Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.　
So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20." Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.　

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a100% saving).
The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).
The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).
The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).
The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).
And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving).　
Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.　

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got £1 out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!"　
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a £1 too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"　

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"　

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.　

The next week the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important - they didn't have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill!　

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.　

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 22/11/2019 - 12:07
In brief, Ian, Marxists want to abolish capitalism, whereas socialists don't.

At least Labour put in their manifesto what they are going to do.

The Tory attack on landlords came two minutes after they won the election and was not in the manifesto.

Reply to the comment left by Arnie Newington at 22/11/2019 - 12:42
Are you sure a socialist attack would not come two minutes after Labour won?

I've said it before, I write to those at the TOP in both conservative and labour and not the locals. we should ALL do the same because it sometimes pays. I wrote to several top Labour MPs re' proposed 'tenant right to buy' and guess what, they've dropped it! Was it my pestering? I'll never know! They may bring it in if/when they get to power???

Reply to the comment left by Gromit at 22/11/2019 - 12:32
And for those who don't want to understand, don't expect others to pay so you can drink on the cheap!

Brilliant analogy.

There are some positives to weigh up. Initially changing the sanctions culture of UC and removing the freeze on LHA. If you are in this sector of the PRS and are a "good" Landlord maybe its only the detail behind the "open-ended tenancies" that is of specific, immediate concern.

None of anything will happen because the balance of power will be so split that no decisions can possibly be made unless all agree which ain't gonna happen. All decisions/dodgy deals that are made will be purely political and of no value to us the people. It's gonna be an absolute disaster. I quite like Mr Farage's "contract" lots of good points in that and no vote catching B******T but of course it ain't gonna happen.

Reply to the comment left by Chris Mayger at 21/11/2019 - 15:02
I have thought about this but not sure if it could cause negative backlash by "threatening" eviction if they vote Labour or anyone other than Tory, that's how some tenants might see it and start a slippery slope of problems.

Generation Rent don’t remember secured tenancies of course. If you had one you didn’t dare move. There was very little availability. Awful for landlords due to rent controls - made your property with sitting tenant almost worthless. But awful for tenants too as nowhere to rent. Right to Buy was the worst thing as depleted stock, so much scamming the system which often left the tenant in a worse position and tenants believing they are owed something at a discount. They don’t teach that in modern history.