111
I guess renting the water supply is cheaper in the short run and more expensive in the long run.
Same with homes, renting can provide lower monthly payments vs a mortgage. But with a mortgage you own the home and eventually you'll have no monthly payment, whereas renting means you'll always pay and the landlord has the final say in matters.
But with a mortgage you own the home
Do you? Or do you start owning it after paying off the mortgage?
Ya, the house is in the persons name. But if they struggle to keep up with payments, it can become the banks home.
At least you can't get kicked out or have your rent raised for arbitrary reasons. Some renters are basically moving every year.
Fair enough, I suppose. Although I'm relatively sure that the bank can mess with the credit conditions
Mortgages can change repayments amounts as the central lending rate changes.
We’re in a squeeze in Canada right now because rates went up and a bunch of mortgages are up for renewal. (5-year fixed rate is standard here)
In Spain you can decode between fixed or variable rates, and although fixed rates are usually a bit higher, having the peace of mind that suddenly the mortgage won't raise next month and being able to plan around a fixed monthly cost is such a big peace of mind.
Fixed rates are the best.
Fixed rates are safer, for sure.
But during the pandemic, when rates went to near zero, I was very glad to be on a variable.
Mortgages can change repayments amounts as the central lending rate changes.
Not in the US if you have a fixed rate mortgage, and most do. There's tons of people who locked in rates at below 3% back in 2020-2021.
It went up a little, but nothing compared to the equivalent in rent you'd pay for the same place.
It's actually pretty comparable for me. My mortgage went up 40% which made the whole monthly cost of housing go up by 28%. Rents in the same building went up similarly but actually haven't quite caught up.
Is that really the case though?
Nationalisation would of course be supported by debt (just like any public investment), so it would only be a matter of comparing the interest rates to the cost of renting. Well most private companies are supported by debt (as they should), so part of the cost is directly paying for the companies' debt. The state will always have lower interest rates (Since the BoE base rate shot up to 5% in the last 2 years you might have to take into account the maturity of different obligations but this would settle as debt gets refinanced), and taking the first company outlined, "Wessex Waters", their financial report show a cost of debt of 5.2% for 22-23, with a debt-to-equity ratio of about 4 if my maths are good.
What this means is that for Wessex Waters, even if we completely ignored profit margin in the form of dividends (5.4% yield), overhead cost of private business (extremely high leadership salaries, bonus, lobbying...etc) and the fact that interest rates are only gonna rise, it would still be profitable in the very short term to nationalise the company.
Don't be mistaken, what's opposing nationalisation and public ownership is and always has been purely ideological (market is more efficient, national debt is somehow a problem), there is absolutely no financial argument against it.
BONUS: Because if I had to skim Wessex Waters strategic report, might aswell chop up some of the Chairman's foreword:
The high quality of our customer service was again recognised, [...] however, we were extremely disappointed that we failed to maintain our record on environmental performance.
Our financial health has always been, and remains, robust.
I thank the Lord Jesus for his constant grace and guidance and pray that we will be able to rise to the challenges we face.
what’s opposing nationalisation and public ownership is and always has been purely ideological
It's private interests seeking to maintain their own profits. The ideology is downstream of that.
Sorry I wasn't very clear, thanks for pointing that out! I'm referring to the arguments opposing nationalisation in the mainstream discourse and not the actual obstacle to it happening (I wouldn't accuse the Labour Party of acting in good faith).
Within the liberal ideology you often here things like "who's gonna pay for it" or "it'll be too expensive", I'm saying that those arguments are surprisingly false even within the frame of liberalism. They pretend that it's impossible due to some cold accounting reality in order to deflect conversation away from the core idea, but this opposition is actually ideological too (it's just more of an uphill battle to defend keeping water in private hands than most other commodities).
As a matter of fact all neoliberal "theories" crumple under their own weight surprisingly fast (EU's flavor in ordoliberalism with it's 3% deficit to GDP and 60% debt to GDP ratios being dazzling examples of idiocy) so you might be onto something, perhaps it's because they're not the product of rigorous research but instead attempts to justify something that is already there 🤔
Fair enough!
Well most private companies are supported by debt (as they should), so part of the cost is directly paying for the companies’ debt. The state will always have lower interest rates
Shit. That's a very interesting point I haven't considered before.
Last time Labour had an actual Labour head, half the party sabotaged him, so now they're stuck with tory-lite.
this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2024
111 points (100.0% liked)
World News
32323 readers
969 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS