"MrBitsy" wrote the following in:


Wrong, there are jobs there but people prefer to do nothing and
get it off the state. There are always jobs around driving mini
cabs, washiing up and other menial jobs.

The idea that there are always jobs around driving mini cabs is what
makes mini cabs so dodgy. You actually have to have special (expensive)
insurance and IIRC some other documents in order to legally be a mini
cab driver but it's the idea that anyone can do it that results in
dangerous, uninsured drivers in dodgy cars.

People are not prepared to help themselves and be honest. I onced
earned £10 cutting a lawn and declared that when I went to sign
on. Even the idiot behind the desk said I should have been quiet
about it.

You should have. £10 is such a small amount as to be of no importance
and isn't worth the effort that involved in taking it into account.

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

"Handlebar catch and nipple."

"Purditer" wrote
the following in:

Why is always that the people who are most against second homes
are those who cannot afford them? Jealousy?

(No I cannot afford a second home)

So what are you saying? That people should be encouraged to buy second
homes by making them cheaper? Because all I was saying in the post you
have replied to is that second homes are an inefficient allocation of
resources and so should not be encouraged by taxing them less.

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

"Handlebar catch and nipple."

"Oliver Keating" wrote in message
...

"Mikael Armstrong" wrote in message
...
I can't say I have a second home, but why should a second home be
heavily
taxed?

Because people who own 2 houses are clearly very rich, and the rich should
be targeted for tax for two reasons:

What utter bollox. With only a minor change in fortunes and/or by focusing
money in different ways I could perhaps afford a second home and I'm a long
way from being rich by western standards.


The thing is, most people with a 2nd home will travel there every weekend
without fail.

The age and type of the cars clogging the M1 through the Midlands late on
Sunday afternoons doesn't indicate wealth.
They mainly look like ordinary working folk who are visiting, sightseeing
etc.
Contrast it to the age and type of car during the week which indicate reps
and middle/senior management going about their business. These people are
less likely to be clogging roads up at weekends as they've had a bellyfull
during the week!

Pete

"Robin May" wrote in message
.4...
"MrBitsy" wrote the following in:


Cast_Iron wrote:
The people who grow the food that you and the rest of us eat and
who would have difficulty doing that job in the middle of a large
conurbation, for example.

What, you mean the poor dears might have to travel to work?

Doesn't this all get a bit ridiculous? People living in cities buy a
second home in the country which they travel long distances to and
from. This forces other people to buy houses far away from where they
work and so they end up travelling long distances to and from work.
They're living in a house that is close to someone else's place of work
and so rather than living there that person has to buy a house where
they can afford to and they have to travel long distances to and from
work.

Living many miles away from where you work and having to travel a long
distance to get there is something that should be discouraged. Not
encouraged so that the rich can buy another castle and leave it empty
for most of the year.

Very true, so why not let people build a few more houses in such areas? The
main problem is the lack of supply that is driving up the prices.

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

"Handlebar catch and nipple."

"Robin May" wrote in message
.4...
"Purditer" wrote
the following in:

Why is always that the people who are most against second homes
are those who cannot afford them? Jealousy?

(No I cannot afford a second home)

So what are you saying? That people should be encouraged to buy second
homes by making them cheaper? Because all I was saying in the post you
have replied to is that second homes are an inefficient allocation of
resources and so should not be encouraged by taxing them less.

The state should stop interfering and let people allocate their own
resources. People who have second homes are less burden in these areas as
they use the local doctors, schools, libraries far less than the locals.

"MrBitsy" wrote in message
...

Get on the council list, live there for a few years and get a discount.
While your doing that, go back to school and improve yourself.

If you can't get a council house then tough - join the rest of us. I
waited
two years for mine. I lived there for 17 years and got a nice discount on
the property.

There speaks a man who has no idea of the current state of social housing in
this country. Things are somewhat different to the way they were 20+ years
ago.

clive

wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:

obin May wrote...

"Vulpes Argenteus (formerly M)" wrote:

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.

I hve bought five houses and sold four.

Well done. Would you like a medal?

No, thanks.

Having a home to live in (and a potential inheritance for my offspring) is
reward enough, even taking account the year or two I spent scrimping and
saving (and working every available hour) to get the deposit (and other
required sums) together for the first house.

I have never seen anything in any part of any of the contracts
which said or implied that I was under any obligation to do
anything towards "solve housing shortages" [sic], or to "make
contribution to the local economy" - or even that I had to live in
the property being purchased.

Well my my, what a surprise.

Well, it was a surprise to me when you implied that there was such a duty
incumbent upon the owners of houses.

Has property law changed in the last tweve years?

Your whole argument is completely irrelevant to what I was saying.

Argument?

What argument?

I was asking you a *question* or two - prompted by your astounding
implication that houses are *only* there to "help solve housing shortage
problems" (whereas most of us think of them as places to live rather than as
fodder in some class war). I was just as surprised by your implicit claim
that the owner of a home" (you *must* be thinking of Two Jags / Five Homes
Prescott here, I think) has some sirt of duty to "make ... contribution to
the local economy".

Statrtling propositions, yes... but actually, not so startling when one
thinks how many other liberties have been swept away in the past six years
or so.

Does the fact that there is no law against something mean it is good
and has no negative effects?

Does the fact that there is no law agaisnt something mean people aren't
allowed to do it?

If you believe that you're more stupid
than I had ever imagined possible. I wasn't saying anything about
property law so why you should bring that up is a mystery.

But you *were* saying something about property!

You were strongly implying that home-owners have some sort of "duty" which
goes above and beyond the duties they took on when buying / inheriting.

I was
merely pointing out that while a second home may make be less of a
burden to local authorities,

That much is definitely true.

"Second homes" mean little - or more likely - *no* demand from that house
for the services of the local education services (the largest slice of LA
expenditure), and they almost certainly mean no demand for the services of
the Social Services department (another moneypit).

In practice, the only direct service the second home owner is likely to
demand from the LA is that the bin is emptied - and even that may not be
every week. And that is more then well-paid-for by a 50% council tax bill,
as I'm sure you'll agree.

it is also an inefficient allocation of
resources and so should definitely not be lightly taxed.

(a) Local authorities have no duty (or power, I hasten to add) to seek
efficiency in allocation of resources other than their own services (and not
all of them manage even that, we should remember).

(b) Homes are not "taxed" like income; the council tax is supposed to be a
fee for services rendered, not a spiteful grab to satisfy grudge-bearers.

This would
remove one of the disincentives to buying another home and thus
encourage inefficient resource allocation.

Really?

wrote:

Why is always that the people who are most against second homes are
those who cannot afford them? Jealousy?

(No I cannot afford a second home)

Snap (both points).

wrote:

"Purditer" wrote:

Why is always that the people who are most against second homes
are those who cannot afford them? Jealousy?
(No I cannot afford a second home)

So what are you saying? That people should be encouraged to buy second
homes by making them cheaper?

You seem to have this recurring difficulty in distinguishing statements from
questions.

Let's be clear: the above poster (with whom I do not always agree) was
*asking a question*.

Do you have an answer to it?

Let's repeat the question for you.

Do you know why it is that the people who are most against second homes are
those who cannot afford them? Is it jealousy?

Because all I was saying in the post you
have replied to is that second homes are an inefficient allocation of
resources and so should not be encouraged by taxing them less.

Whatever.

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:26:20 -0000, "Mikael Armstrong"
wrote:


Very true, so why not let people build a few more houses in such areas?

Try the nationalised planning system courtesy of the town and country
planning act 1947.

A spiteful piece of legislation whose only purpose was to outlaw the
mechanism by which 1.5+ million privately built, financed and *affordable*
houses in the 20s and 30s. Couldn't have that doncha know.

It not an 'efficient use of resources' (sic), you have to keep them poor
and dependent so they'll keep voting socialist.

Nimbies and bananas also love it as it' a morass of centrally planned
bureaucratic process which can be exploited to frustrate obtaining the
necessary consent.

The T5 public inquiry or taking 8 years to put a 2nd runway at Stansted are
prime cases in point.


The main problem is the lack of supply that is driving up the prices.

If you were to believe the CPRE, the SE is currently like downtown Hong
Hong during the rush hour, when the reality is that approximately 15% of
the land within 1 hours commute of charring cross is built on.



greg

--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.