Rent Control Paradox No 1

The Big Ideas

To get a deal you have to offer both sides something that any loss will be accepted as a long term gain overall. Especially if it’s a case of two sides of the same coin, ie parents with assets, their children on low/median labour income.

So first of all ‘frame’ the argument with a report like the Beveridge report of 1942, with a simple x point list.

My suggestion is;

The Five Giants of the 21st Century

Care, Learning, Home, Income, Retirement.

Care Early child care, free at the point of need
Learning Further Education, free at the point of need
Home Affordable on average incomes/de-commodified, fair rent
Income Unemployment by government job schemes and average income related unemployment payments
Retirement Elderly care, free at the point of need, nationalised like the original NHS

The Carrot

  • Government to fund fully childcare all the way through to higher education/apprenticeships (inc Masters level, maybe Ph.D).
  • Government funded house building, (no poor doors) for rent and purchase, mixed development.
  • Unemployment; Government work schemes, so in reality nobody needs to be unemployed. Based around minimum wage as well as unemployment
  • benefit, not means tested.
  • Fully funded nationalised elderly care, based on the original NHS model.

This has been the Nordic model for the past 60 years. (Lakey, Partanen,
Booth, Hilson)

The Stick

  • Land monopolists to no longer profit from doing nothing. (Churchill) 
  • Land Value tax (LVT) after all land is registered ( not been completed since
    1067) (Shrubsole).
  • Any refusal, compulsory purchased at 2010 rate (note; the Attlee
    government did the same in 1945-51, but offering 1939 values for
    compulsory purchase for ‘new town’ land) the land then compulsorily
    purchased and turned back to the commons for rewilding of common land
    or rented to local farmers.(Shrubsole)
  • High taxes on 2nd homes (LVT), buy-to-let, again with government
    purchase offered as an exit strategy for small buy-to-let owners wanting to
    get out of the market (quid pro quo).
  • Mortgages taken back to pre 1971 (CCC act) building societies (not banks)
    with 12% minimum reserves, 4 times max single earner 3 times combined
    over 25 years max repayment, 5-10% deposit. Variable interest rates, based
    on a window around BOE base rates.
  • All retail banks to no longer be able to gamble on the stock market (pre
    1986 Big Bang), therefore lending to local business for revenue (pre 1986
    and 71), more local banks as in Germany so break up the big 4.(Werner)

Obviously this is a very basic summary, but the point is that pre 1970 local average income dictated the price of a house, not free market speculation based on created scarcity.


The idea is that if you don’t have to worry about, childcare, education, housing deposit and purchase/rent, unemployment, most of all retirement and possibly going into a home, then the need to ‘save for your retirement’ is no longer an issue, so you don’t need an inflated housing market. (Lakey, Partanen, Booth, Hilson)

From a social perspective the children are no longer dependant on the parents asset wealth, ie cutting the apron strings. Conversely the parents are no longer dependant on their children for elderly care and the ensuing arguments, avoidance scams and possible elderly abuse due to selling ‘their inheritance” (Lakey, Partanen) Note; a progressive higher inheritance tax to keep a close wealth gap.

If you have money to invest, then a green wealth fund, and/or bond, the stock market as per usual…but not land! (Ryan-Collins,Lloyd, Shrubsole, Werner)
The model this is based upon is the Nordic model, in particular Norway, Sweden and Finland. All funded, with a low GDP to money spent into the economy ratio because the Nordics don’t have to worry about big price tag items, they can just get on with what is important for a countries growth, innovation, time to develop outside of work ( ie no second job), taking risks without the fear of losing everything if unemployed, ill, business failure. A freedom to fail, that all those pursuing new ideas need. (Lakey, Partanen, Booth, Hilson).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s