Allowing public and community bodies to buyback and retrofit private rental homes will save renters and taxpayers £40bn per year, while reducing CO2 emissions and driving economic recovery in every part of the UK

Representation to the Comprehensive Spending Review 2020

(Photo By Dave Eagle, CC BY-SA 2.0)

Summary

This representation to the UK government’s Comprehensive Spending Review 2020 proposes that the UK government provides central (or supports local) financing to fund the transfer of private rented sector (PRS) homes to the public and social/community housing sector and retrofit each home to a near zero carbon standard.

The purpose of this policy would be to:

1. Reduce the cost of renting a home privately
2. Improve the comfort and energy efficiency standards of these homes
3. Significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions
4. Improve the security of tenure for tenants
5. …

The semi-privatisation of the British rental sector is costing renters around £35bn more in payments per year than if that housing were rented from the public sector

It is also costing the UK taxpayer around £6bn more per year in housing benefit payments.

So why on Earth don’t we change it?

Below I set out, in terms of the numbers at least, how a transition from private to public/community housing can be achieved in a way that is fair to current landlords, reduces rents for renters and reduces costs to the UK taxpayer.

Let’s start with the current private rented sector:

There are approximately 5.52 million households in the UK that rent their home from a private landlord. They pay, on average £11,500 per year in rent , making a total annual payment of £63.6bn across the entire private rented sector.

So would renting the same homes from a public landlord be any cheaper?

If we assume that each of these 5.52 million homes…

The full disappointment of the 2019 general election had barely sunk in on (appropriately) Friday 13th December before Caroline Lucas re-iterated the consensus view among many leading members of the Green Party: in order to defeat the Conservatives, ‘progressive parties’ must ‘join forces’.

The idea of some sort of electoral alliance with Labour has long been the favoured strategy among many party members, especially those who define themselves as being on the left.

The equation is simple; in many marginal seats, Labour + Greens > Conservatives. So combining Labour and Green campaigns is more likely to see the Conservatives defeated.

But is it true?

…

I’d rather avoid adding to the avalanche of post-election analyses claiming to understand exactly what happened and why, but it is worth taking a little time to clarify a few fiscal points in the small area where I was involved.

The Green Party of England & Wales had a reasonable campaign, in that our vote rose slightly, our agenda was much more to the fore than in previously elections and we performed better under pressure than we ever have done before.

In my view, the reason for the last success was the 3 or 4 years of work, planning, debate…

At the recent Green Party Conference the Party supported a complete rewrite of its tax and fiscal policy. Below is an overview of the new policy and its applications.

— — — -

Why did we need to rewrite our policy?

In the 2015 General Election, the Green Party of England and Wales put forward a programme for government that included an increase in spending of around £200bn, that would be funded by a number of untested and often vague taxes. These new taxes and tax rises would acquire the majority of this money from the incomes of the very richest people, their assets and their financial transactions.

…

At this year’s Green Party (of England and Wales) Conference we are being asked to consider what kind of economy we need and how we can move on from the current economic malaise.

Beyond the environmental sustainability questions that we need to answer, there is also a serious economic and social dysfunction in the current economy of the UK.

While many describe these problems at a macro level — i.e.: fiscal deficits, current account deficits, national debt, low growth, increasing house prices, increasing inequality, public spending, money supply, interest rates, national productivity etc — I would like to explain them…

The efficiency of a Basic Income would mean that less tax revenue would be required to support redistribution of wealth than the current tax and benefits system

The most common criticism of a Basic Income is that it would be too expensive. “We simply can’t afford it,” “It would require a huge increases in taxes,” and “supporting everyone would cost too much,” are common responses from those who oppose a basic income. But they fail to take into account the cost of the current systems of welfare, taxation and general income redistribution.

In the UK at the moment, the government…

How a Negative Income Tax could more effectively deliver a Basic Income

Using a Negative Income Tax mechanism to deliver a Basic Income could decrease the tax burden, especially on those who work for a living.

The assumption of much of the discussion around Basic Income/Citizens Income is that it will require a huge increase in taxation. This is not an unreasonable assumption given that most Basic Income models argue for a significant cash sum to be provided to every adult citizen on top of all other public expenditure.

Some (such as the RSA’s Anthony Painter) have already countered this…