"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...
....
But they don't spend more cash. Everyone has certain needs, once those
needs
are met their surplus cash sits in the bank or wherever they choose to put
it.

I think you will find the definition of what constitutes those 'certain
needs' changes with income. You will also find that most rich people don't
leave their money sitting around as surplus cash. At the moment, private
investors are probably the easiest way for small to medium size businesses
to get capital for new ventures.

Colin Bignell

"Oliver Keating" wrote in message
...
....
The thing is, most people with a 2nd home will travel there every weekend
without fail.

For the people I know with second homes, once a month is more probable.

Colin Bignell

"Vulpes Argenteus (formerly M)" wrote the
following in:

I like the idea of 'social justice' insofar as a second home is
much less heavily used in terms of local resources: waste
disposal, road maintenance and so forth, and should therefore be
comparatively lightly taxed.

But a second home is an inefficient allocation of resources. Something
that could be used to help solve housing shortage problems instead ends
up sitting unused for large amounts of the time and the owners make
little contribution to the local economy.

--
message by Robin May, but you can call me Mr Smith.
Enjoy the Routemaster while you still can.

"Handlebar catch and nipple."

"Duncan McNiven" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 00:54:37 -0000, "Oliver Keating"
wrote:

Because they if they are rich enough to be buying a second house (which I
regard as the ultimate frivoulous activity), they can certainly afford to
be
screwed for every penny by the tax man.

Between us, my wife & I own 2 homes & rent a 3rd. Does that make us rich?
Hardly. We have
our family home. We also own the home which, before our marriage, I shared
with my mother;
my mother still lives there. My wife also rents an apartment near her work
(1000 miles
from home).

Now should I sell my old home, thus making my mother homeless? Should my
wife commute
daily?

If you want to tax rich people, tax income, not what people choose to
spend their money
on.


But none of the additional houses are purely holiday/weekend homes are they?
It's a different situation.

"Martyn Hodson" wrote in message
...

"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...
Martyn Hodson wrote:
"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 09:11:09 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:


But if you reduce the tax burden surely you encourage
enterprise, which moves more money around the economy
and thus you still get your tax. I am not an economist,
but AFAIK there are still arguments about high vs low
tax . The rich will always provide you with more
revenue per capita as they're spending and earning more
cash.

That was Thatcher's theory, it didn't work.


Oh really ? That explains why the tax take increased by
nearly 50% when the 60% band was abolished.

It also explains why the top 10% of tax payers are now
paying close to 40% of the overall take compared to just
over 20% at the height of so socially equitable rates of
98%.



But they don't spend more cash. Everyone has certain
needs, once those needs are met their surplus cash sits in
the bank or wherever they choose to put it.

but that somewhere can include
direct investment in new business
investment in venture capital orgs
investment in banks, building socieites and other financial
services providers
all of which has a varying effect on job and wealth creation


It can, but the "filter down" effect that your alluding to and Thatcher
espoused didn't happen and hasn't happened yet to any significant
degree.

the 'filter down' effect applies to anyone working for privately owned
company ( in this context, working for a sole proprietor, partnership
co-op or limited company , rather than a state owned or publicily quoted
company)

as without investment from the owner/partners/ shareholders/ co-op members
there would be not business and no ongoign wealth creation would there ?



Perfectly true, that has been happening for many hundreds of years. However,
the dogmatists in the eighties would have had us believe that there was
going to be a sudden and massive increase in the number of businesses being
set up and that within a very short time everyone would be significantly
better off than hitherto. It didn't happen.

"nightjar .uk.com" nightjar@insert_my_surname_here wrote in message
. ..

"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...
...
But they don't spend more cash. Everyone has certain needs, once those
needs
are met their surplus cash sits in the bank or wherever they choose to
put
it.

I think you will find the definition of what constitutes those 'certain
needs' changes with income.

To a degree true, but any individual only requires a certain amount of food
and the other basics of life. The point is that someone with a holiday home
in a different part of the country is depriving that local economy of the
same level of income that a permanant resident would put in.


You will also find that most rich people don't
leave their money sitting around as surplus cash. At the moment, private
investors are probably the easiest way for small to medium size businesses
to get capital for new ventures.


Undoubtedly true, but not pertinent to this thread.

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 07:58:53 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron" wrote:

But none of the additional houses are purely holiday/weekend homes are they?
It's a different situation.

Yes, it is a very different situation, but if 2nd homes were heavily taxed it would take
some unusually clever legislation to make this situation exempt without leaving great
loopholes in the law.

--
Duncan

"Doki" wrote in message
...

"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...

"Silk" wrote in message
...
Oliver Keating wrote:

1) Social justice

People who are not prepared to work should get no money. That's social
justice.


What about people who want to but are not allowed to?

Which ones would they be? I honestly can't think of anyone who wants work
but isn't allowed to. I can think of situations where it isn't worth
people's while working, but only on an anecdotal basis.

Its only very recently that we have almost full employment, and there are
still places where jobs aren't dead easy to get.

"PeterE" wrote in message
...
Conor wrote:
In article ,
says...

This very different from what you usually tell us about house prices
up north.

Why is that?

Even with the 100% increase they're still cheap compared to most of
the rest of England. It is still possible to buy a 3 bed house for
£70,000 in Driffield but that's still above alot of peoples incomes
here.

But people on that kind of money have *never* been able to afford to buy
houses. Such a house ....

err. ********.
Just one or two years ago, not too far from where you are, you could get a
decent house in a non-dodgy area for less than 30,000

(to the original point -the prices have more than doubles in a short space
of time)

JohnB wrote:

Thank you for showing your ignorance.
In this case the work is throughout the year.

Please give an example of a type of farming that is not seasonal.

I'm sure there are a lot of farms that have a similar workload all year
round, but the type of activity will vary according to season.