|
reducing congestion
Mikael Armstrong wrote:
"Cast_Iron" wrote in message ... Mikael Armstrong wrote: "Cast_Iron" wrote in message ... 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. So why do we not have the same situation with cars? Cars themselves can be bought for less now than ever in real terms. This is due to the fact that there is far greater supply so people buying cars can shop around for a good deal. The laws of supply and demand will always work things out, and in the housing market, the market is artificially being held high by restricting supply. If you were to take note of news broadcasts you would have noticed that the present government took action to force down the price of cars. Another part of the reason is that houses last considerably longer than cars generally speaking. But just for the hell of it, see what price you would have to pay for a Mk1 Cortina now, it will be significantly above it price when new. The government action to reduce the price of cars has not really made much difference. Cars are still even cheaper in other EU countries. The main reduction in price of cars between now and 20 years ago has been increased competition in the market, increased efficiency in car production and fewer trade restrictions. Thankfully we have a far greater choice these days and don't have to buy Mk1 Cortinas. People who wish to buy "classic cars" are obviously free to do so. Hmmm, You compared the difference in price rises between cars and houses. I used the analogy of a Mk1 Cortina to illustrate that cars also increse in value over time. Is using an analogy something you are not familair with? |
reducing congestion
"Stimpy" wrote in message ... 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 Social Justice is rather stupid, why would anyone want to give anything to someone else when it has no benefit to them in doing so? The only people who would support such an idea are young idealists who have yet to get a grip on reality or no hopers who cannot do it for themselves. |
reducing congestion
"Purditer" wrote in message ... "Stimpy" wrote in message ... 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 Social Justice is rather stupid, why would anyone want to give anything to someone else when it has no benefit to them in doing so? The only people who would support such an idea are young idealists who have yet to get a grip on reality or no hopers who cannot do it for themselves. How sad. |
reducing congestion
"Cast_Iron" wrote in message ... "Cast_Iron" wrote in message ... But the net result is that buying a holiday home is depriving someone else of a permanent home. Only if there is a local shortage of housing. If you buy in France, for example, there are tax advantages to buying a new property, so there are lots of older properties around that nobody wants. They are the ones invariably offered to the British buyers. Colin Bignell Just in case you hadn't noticed this discussion has nothing to do with France or any other country outside the UK. I suspect the same would be true in parts of Britain, but I don't know the housing situation well enough across the country to be able to give specific examples from the UK. Although second home owners are blamed for pushing prices up in rural areas, they probably first went there because the locals wanted better wages than they could get locally, so they moved out, depressing the local house market and making the houses cheap enough to attract outside buyers. Colin Bignell |
reducing congestion
"Purditer" wrote in message ... "Stimpy" wrote in message ... 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 Social Justice is rather stupid, why would anyone want to give anything to someone else when it has no benefit to them in doing so? The only people who would support such an idea are young idealists who have yet to get a grip on reality or no hopers who cannot do it for themselves. Noblesse oblige, or a strong sense of socialism. Colin Bignell |
reducing congestion
wrote:
JNugent wrote: wrote: JNugent wrote: 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? I didn't say it wasn't on the way out, I merely made the point that Thatcher forced it to end. A subtle but distinct difference that is obviously lost on you. The more so because it was a lie. So it wasn't a Thatcher government the introduced the "Right to Buy" legislation then? No. As you would know (if you were not simply motivated by unthinking knee-jerk socialism - if you'll forgive the tautology), the RTB: (a) was introduced under the Edward Heath government of 1970-1974, and (b) only applied to council houses - and certainly not to tied cottages on farms. Try again? |
reducing congestion
|
reducing congestion
|
reducing congestion
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 08:28 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk