Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Homelessness in Harringay
Is it just my impression or the number of homeless people in Harringay/Green Lanes is going up by the day? Last night I counted about 7 people on the way from Homebase to the Post Office. And they weren't even the usual faces I see all the time.
I am wondering if the number of homeless people has increased everywhere in London or just in this neighbourhood?
Tags for Forum Posts: homelessness
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
More twisted logic. I won't benefit from house price inflation unless I downsize ( which I'm not going to do ). And if I were to sell, I would have to pay Capital Gains Tax. So who is subsidising whom ?
Are there no museums in Berlin ? no restaurants in Paris ? No cool stuff in Vienna ?
Are you sure you work in finance ?
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
You won't pay capital gains tax, this is your primary residence. The Museums in London are better and FREE. Please just take it from me that people all over the world don't want to come to live in London just to be near the Queen. It's a really, really cool city. Berlin has subsidies too but on nothing like the scale London does. I would more compare London to Chelmsford.
-
-
-
It's a twisted kind of logic that says that I'm being subsidised if I don't have to pay an obsolete tax that owner occupiers once had to pay on a non-existent notional income.
If I don't now have to pay a 100% Supertax on my income, am I being subsidised ?
-
-
I think one person is being more open minded about what constitutes a subsidy than you are. If other people are paying a tax when they sell a house that you are not, that is a subsidy.
We could just simply counterfactual this with, imagine you didn't have a house, you just saved up the cash that you spent on your mortgage (just the capital) and rented instead (the interest). At the end you have no house but, you have the original purchase price in cash. In this situation I'd also imagine that your rent was higher than the monthly interest on your mortgage. In most economists minds you received a subsidy for being a home owner.
The other way to look at it if you don't want to think you're getting a subsidy is tell me what you call what is happening to private renters.
-
-
"We could just simply counterfactual this with, imagine you didn't have a house"
-
-
-
John I am talking about me, now, in my house. Not about some imaginary scenario which happens to confirm whatever point you are trying to make.
-
-
-
I give up. You can't see that you got a subsidy from the housing market which others did not get. You think that was your hard work but I've tried to demonstrate that your hard work was leveraged by house price inflation. Don't think about selling it, think about if you hadn't bought it but were renting it.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Charlotte A on
-
Is your point that people who are lucky enough to get mortgages and so buy their own house end up with the capital in the form of the house at the end of the mortgage? So they have theoretically paid the same (probably less) than the rent they would have paid for the same property for 25 years, but the 'subsidy' is that they end up with a possession that those renting don't end up with?
-
-
-
Not to take sides between John D and John M.
But it's a fact there's mortgage tax relief on buy-to-let properties. And between 1969 and 2000 there was MIRAS (Mortgage Interest Relief at Source) for personal borrowers - that was something from which as a baby boomer house buyer I benefitted from, as did most house buyers in that era.
-
-
-
I assume that buy-to-let doesn't qualify as owner-occupation
And I bought out of savings, not mortgage
-
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
