Daz

[Daz @dizzeedaz]

Which one are you?

[Daz @dizzeedaz]

@mr_james_c Wealth is an arbitrary fugazi value.

Wealth today, gone tomorrow. There's no contract in place providing cash.

Can I pay my tax in wealth?

Here's a 400 year old pot to cover my tax bill. Or, would they prefer cash in hand.

[Daz @dizzeedaz]

@DanNeidle @hasanthehun Fantastic question, and tax doesn't have to be the answer.

We could redistribute 'wealth' via capitalism, such as increased competition.

We have a one horse race and then people wish to cut the gold medal in half and give it to those who don't participate.

[Daz @dizzeedaz]

@nav7634 @moving_charlie I don't like SDLT and I recognise the damage it causes. It's insane to tax something so heavily that's so vitally important.

But the heavy amount of tax comes from the high house price, caused by the mortgage, I just can't look past the cause of the problem.

[Daz @dizzeedaz]

@nav7634 @moving_charlie SDLT is similar to rent, it's the wrong focus.

Because, as prices come down, so too will rent and SDLT.

Our focus should be on reducing house prices, and the rest will follow.

[Daz @dizzeedaz]

@nav7634 @moving_charlie Stamp Duty acts as a barrier and a dampener to house purchases.

So it restricts house price increases by removing capital from the purchase.

If we remove SDLT prices will go up.

Because SDLT is a percentage, as house prices come down the monetary SDLT costs will come down.

[Daz @dizzeedaz]

@nav7634 @mattoshi21 @moving_charlie We don't have a free property market.

Asking for a free market and ending the interconnected oligopoly influence whereby one entity has the means to increase house prices so that they can financially benefit will never be Marxist.

We're on the correct side here.

[Daz @dizzeedaz]

@nav7634 @mattoshi21 @moving_charlie Well said NAV. Sometimes I can't be bothered to explain it.

These pro debt people want to blame people like me who want to end the property Ponzi scheme mortgage scam and don't blame those who created it those who want it to continue or those making it worse.

[Daz @dizzeedaz]

@mattoshi21 @moving_charlie If it does it'll be no different than the dotcom bubble (housing is a bubble); 2008 GFC (caused by mortgage debt); COVID; and the stress of high interest rates and homes being repossessed now. Plus our 35+ year depression we're in
My idea gives people more money, boosting growth

[Daz @dizzeedaz]

@krxsctr @DanNeidle @cjsnowdon If they call, they're not suspicious of you, they're not really checking to see if you're a fraudster or a mule.

They're just checking to make sure that you're not actually being scammed yourself.

You can launder money and the bank basically has your back.

[Daz @dizzeedaz]

@krxsctr @DanNeidle @cjsnowdon If you say you're making the payment to your uncle, and make the payment to 4 different names, 5 different accounts and 4 different banks

They won't even ask why your uncle has 4 different names and why not send the money to 1 account.

[Daz @dizzeedaz]

@krxsctr @DanNeidle @cjsnowdon If they ask "is this the last payment", you can just say yes, and then continue to make large payments out and you'll get zero stoppage.

The IT system must get overridden by the bank person saying that the payments are okay and normal, so no further flags then occur.

[Daz @dizzeedaz]

@krxsctr @DanNeidle @cjsnowdon The banks don't give a s1t.

As long as you have a reason they'll let the payment go.

You can say you're buying a house overseas with cash, no solicitor in the UK or in the foreign country... Sending the payment to 4 different people...and they'll go "oh, okay"

[Daz @dizzeedaz]

@DanNeidle @cjsnowdon Absolute no chance!
1) £130,000 received into a £2,000 account
2) 4 overseas payments from 4 different names, 2 cash deposit, 2 UK transfers from 2 different names
3) £130,000 back out overseas
4) 1 payment bounce, 4 overseas payments to 4 different names, 3 different banks 🤷

[Daz @dizzeedaz]

@DanNeidle @DamianPudner Ironically, doesn't a wealth tax require people to be wealthy.

So the idea of taking from the rich to give to the poor requires ongoing inequality.

So Gary needs inequality for his idea to function.

Why not just address how they're getting rich in the first place.

[Daz @dizzeedaz]

@giantdestroyer4 @moving_charlie Ive suggested reducing LTV over time

More equity, less leverage, lower repayments, lower risk of default, less interest paid, less impact from higher rates, less credit creation

But anything that gets prices and debt down, even if the minimum rate assumption is always 5%

[Daz @dizzeedaz]

@worstall @moving_charlie We can have more physical supply, but it doesn't necessarily add to the economic supply dynamics, because people can buy additional houses as an investment and just leave it empty (like a holiday home).

Empty could just mean it's owned and not for sale, it's just being horded.

[Daz @dizzeedaz]

@worstall @moving_charlie I see Thanks

I'd say, just because it's empty it doesn't mean it's available to buy and provide extra supply.

But if it's empty, then the potential extra supply is there without having to build.

It proves a point I've made before that building more doesn't add extra supply

[Daz @dizzeedaz]

@worstall @moving_charlie I'm just trying to establish the argument you're making, in lay terms, using that picture you posted?

What does that picture prove, I don't understand.

[Daz @dizzeedaz]

@worstall @moving_charlie What's your argument whilst using that picture? You're saying that Portugal has less ordinary houses available to buy but lower house prices?

The issue is the credit, that's what pushes up house prices.

They need a job first, before they use it to push up the house price.