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.

wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:

... agricultural workers.

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.

There was a lot to be said for the concept of the tied cottage, of
course (a bit like armed forces' married quarters, or even like nos.
10 & 11 Downing Street).

But the chatterati were dead against tied cottages...

It was Maggie and co that forced an end to tied housing.

Sheer, biased, blinkered, knee-jerk, nonsense.

The tied cottage was being "phased out" (pilloried as a social anachronism)
decades before 1979.

S'funny, that.

Had the tied cottages remained in their original use, there'd be less need
for hand-wringing over the housing fate of agricultural workers, wouldn't
there?

wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:

There was a lot to be said for the concept of the tied cottage, of
course (a bit like armed forces' married quarters, or even like nos.
10 & 11 Downing Street).

But the chatterati were dead against tied cottages...

If the world is all rosy and everyone is nice, then fine. As soon as
you start having difficulties with your employer then its a bit crap
that they also own your house. (and just think if it was ENRON and
all your savings and pension were also tied up in the same basket of
eggs).

Enron owned farms? :-)

Also :would you really want to change house just because you change
job?

Agricultural workers lucky enough to own their own homes must do that now -
as they cannot *possibly* commute to a farm job, apparently.

"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...

"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.

I buy a second house. I won't be spending much time there, so, as I won't
have time to do the decorating myself, that, along with a few repairs, have
to be done by a local builder. I'm not moving an existing house, so all the
furniture, tv, hi-fi, video etc, have to be bought locally. How many years'
food shopping will a permanent resident have to do to put the same amount of
money into the local economy? Then, of course, there are the ongoing costs.
I will need both a gardener and someone to clean the house, if I want to
prevent things getting out of hand while I am away. That is without even
spending any time at the house.

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.

If you have money to invest in a business, you want to have confidence that
the business plan is realistic, which means that someone you know is more
likely to get it. If you have two homes, that is two communities where you
are likley to know people and the chances are that the second home is likely
to be in an area where investment is needed more.

Colin Bignell

Oliver Keating wrote:

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

1) Social justice

= jealousy

Cast_Iron wrote:
"Doki" wrote in message
...

"Oliver Keating" wrote in
message ...

2) It would actually be impossible to raise enough revenue if
everyone was taxed to the same %age because the rich provide a
disproportionately large chunk of revenue.

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.

It worked fine for some of us thank you very much

(age 42 and semi-retired)

Purditer wrote:
"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.

So knocking the house down so that no one can live there at all must be the
next logical step.

Mikael Armstrong wrote:
"Robin May" wrote in message
.4...
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.

errrr, no. The only thing driving up house prices is greed.

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

Of course

Clive George wrote:
"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.


Thanks to his Goddess.