reducing congestion
 

W K wrote:
"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.

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. People should be forced to do those jobs while waiting
for a better one.

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.

--
MrBitsy

reducing congestion
 

Conor wrote:
In article ,
says...

The world is full of people who would rather live in a/the house
they can't afford to buy.

This applies to people living and working in a rural community. People
like agricultural workers.

How about moving somewhere where they can afford to buy - the rest of us
have to do it.

I write software but can't afford to buy a new house in the town I live. Do
I have a reasonable gripe against someone that moved out of London or should
I just move where I can afford a property?

Who are 'agricultural workers' to get special treatment?

--
MrBitsy

reducing congestion
 

Conor wrote:
In article , CastIron_881
@hotmail.com says...


But it is the question of affordability in relation to local wages
that is the cause for concern.

We have entire villages where the only locally born people there are
those who bought their homes decades ago and never moved. The rest
simply can't afford to buy. The sad fact is that the effect is also
spreading into the towns in East Yorks to the point that no locals
will be able to afford to buy.

So what?

I can't afford to buy a house in the town I was born in so I had to look
elsewhere. Why should people in villages or certain jobs get special
treatment? They will have to do the same as the rest of us. Buy cheap, maybe
in another town, work hard and eventually have enogh money to be able to buy
exactly where you want.

--
MrBitsy

reducing congestion
 

MrBitsy wrote:
Oliver Keating wrote:

snip

And as people keep seeming to forget, every pound that one
of these rich kids pays is a pound that the poor don't
have to pay.


Perhaps they ought to do something about it and become
richer? A lot of people can't be bothered to improve,
prefering to stay poor by choice and moan about 'rich'
people.

An unfortunate aspect of English culture I feel, it's easier to sit and slag
off those who make the effort than to get off one's arse and do something to
improve one's situation.

I once heard and interesting definition between the British and American
outlooks. A Brit sees a desirable car pass him, and thinks, "Why the f**k
should he have that?" whereas an American thinks "Hey, that's nice, I'll get
one" and makes the effort to achieve that aim.

reducing congestion
 

Conor wrote:

snip

static whilst the house prices have shot up 100%. Even a couple on
decent wages for the area can no longer afford to buy a house on a 3
times multiplier of annual earnings.

So buy a flat then!
--
MrBitsy

reducing congestion
 

Conor wrote:
In article ,
says...
Conor wrote...

CastIron_881 @hotmail.com says...

But it is the question of affordability in relation to local wages
that is the cause for concern.

We have entire villages where the only locally born people there are
those who bought their homes decades ago and never moved. The rest
simply can't afford to buy. The sad fact is that the effect is also
spreading into the towns in East Yorks to the point that no locals
will be able to afford to buy.

That's odd, Conor.

You are forever telling us how cheap housing is up there.

It is compared to most of the country but the local wages are dire.
The cost of housing in villages though has risen far faster than that
of the towns. You'll be lucky to find a house in a village for sale
under £150,000. Considering that the average wage around here is
£12,000, how can even a working couple afford to buy?

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.

During the wait for a council property, I lived with my mother-in-law. Life
is tough sometimes - get on with it and stop whinging.

--
MrBitsy

reducing congestion
 

Conor wrote:
In article ,
says...

In the nearest town?

Just a suggestion...

They still can't really afford one on £12k.

Tough - work hard and save until you can.
--
MrBitsy

reducing congestion
 

Cast_Iron wrote:
Duncan McNiven wrote:
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.

House 1 is the permanent family home, no problem, no loophole.
House 2 is the parental home occupied by a parent, no problem, no
loophole. House 3 being 1000 miles away is not in the UK I suspect,
if so, no relevant.

Why do people try to create problems where none exist?

Because if bad news is just around the corner, that parental home will
become a second home.


--
MrBitsy

reducing congestion
 

"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...
Given the that the increased road congestion in Friday and Sunday
evenings
is caused by many people going and from to their country cottages for the
weekend, isn't it time that second homes attracted a punative rate of
council tax?

Less controversially, isn't it time that second homes attracted the normal
(ie non-discount) rate of council tax?

clive

reducing congestion
 

"MrBitsy" wrote in message
...

The taxi jobs especially made me feel realy down but my
family needed feeding and clothing. I could either sit on my
arse for £120 per week or do those jobs for £140 per week.
That extra £20 meant dealing with drunks and
lowlifes, but it gave us £20 more self respect.

Do you mean "It gave us £20 more money, and £120 more self respect"?

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

reducing congestion
 

Silk wrote:

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.

Do chickens stop laying eggs[1] in the winter where you live?

Not the product I originally referred to but it might help you get the
message.

John B

reducing congestion
 

"MrBitsy" wrote in message
...
W K wrote:
"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.

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. People should be forced to do those jobs while waiting
for a better one.

You live in london don't you.

reducing congestion
 

"Doki" wrote in message
...

W K wrote in message
...

"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.

That's wanting a job and not getting one, not *not being allowed* to work.

Odd distinction.
Unless people want a job but never get round to actually asking anyone for
one, then someone is not allowing them to work for them.

reducing congestion
 

"MrBitsy" wrote in message
...
Cast_Iron wrote:
"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.



Such people might include (but without excluding anyone else) somone
who needs to change occupation because a disability has set in. That
person has the skills for the new occupation/s s/he wants to take up
but because s/he hasn't used those skills in a full-time job no
prospective employer will give him/her a chance.

So they do any job they are able until a suitable job appears.
--

And if no one will gve them a job because of "lack of experience"?

reducing congestion
 

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

The world is full of people who would rather live in a/the house
they can't afford to buy.

This applies to people living and working in a rural community. People
like agricultural workers.

How about moving somewhere where they can afford to buy - the rest of us
have to do it.

I write software but can't afford to buy a new house in the town I live.
Do
I have a reasonable gripe against someone that moved out of London or
should
I just move where I can afford a property?

Who are 'agricultural workers' to get special treatment?


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.

reducing congestion
 

"MrBitsy" wrote in message
...
Conor wrote:

snip

static whilst the house prices have shot up 100%. Even a couple on
decent wages for the area can no longer afford to buy a house on a 3
times multiplier of annual earnings.

So buy a flat then!

What makes you think that would be significantly cheaper?

reducing congestion
 

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

In the nearest town?

Just a suggestion...

They still can't really afford one on £12k.

Tough - work hard and save until you can.


Working hard has got nothing to do with it. Being able to work effectively
and earn sufficient money has.

reducing congestion
 

"Clive George" wrote in message
...
"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...
Given the that the increased road congestion in Friday and Sunday
evenings
is caused by many people going and from to their country cottages for
the
weekend, isn't it time that second homes attracted a punative rate of
council tax?

Less controversially, isn't it time that second homes attracted the normal
(ie non-discount) rate of council tax?


But if I had suggested that we wouldn't have had this interesting
conversation I suspect, unless someone wants to prove me wrong?

reducing congestion
 

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.

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.

Has property law changed in the last tweve years?

reducing congestion
 

Cast_Iron wrote...

"MrBitsy" wrote:

Conor wrote:

says...

The world is full of people who would rather live in a/the house
they can't afford to buy.

This applies to people living and working in a rural community. People
like agricultural workers.

How about moving somewhere where they can afford to buy - the rest of us
have to do it.
I write software but can't afford to buy a new house in the town I live.
Do I have a reasonable gripe against someone that moved out of London
or should I just move where I can afford a property?
Who are 'agricultural workers' to get special treatment?

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...

reducing congestion
 

In article , says...


Silk wrote:

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.

Do chickens stop laying eggs[1] in the winter where you live?

Not the product I originally referred to but it might help you get the
message.

Not so long as you keep a light in their coop/quarters/ accommodation.

So long as you can simulate "summer" light hours, they should stay in lay
all year round - _as a group_. Hens go in & out of lay, so you'll not get
100% turnaround all the time.

Pete.

--
NOTE! Email address is spamtrapped. Any email will be bounced to you
Remove the news and underscore from my address to reply by mail

reducing congestion
 

Cast_Iron wrote:
"MrBitsy" wrote in message
...
Conor wrote:
In article ,
says...

The world is full of people who would rather live in a/the house
they can't afford to buy.

This applies to people living and working in a rural community.
People like agricultural workers.

How about moving somewhere where they can afford to buy - the rest
of us have to do it.

I write software but can't afford to buy a new house in the town I
live. Do I have a reasonable gripe against someone that moved out of
London or should I just move where I can afford a property?

Who are 'agricultural workers' to get special treatment?


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?
--
MrBitsy

reducing congestion
 

Cast_Iron wrote:
"MrBitsy" wrote in message
...
Cast_Iron wrote:
"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.



Such people might include (but without excluding anyone else) somone
who needs to change occupation because a disability has set in. That
person has the skills for the new occupation/s s/he wants to take up
but because s/he hasn't used those skills in a full-time job no
prospective employer will give him/her a chance.

So they do any job they are able until a suitable job appears.
--

And if no one will gve them a job because of "lack of experience"?

Its a tough world.

I finished University after 4 years learning about software engineering.
First job was installing PC's in peoples homes for Comet and Dixons. Didn't
dream of whinging about it. Here I am five years later writing software for
a living.

People like to be poor and moan about it. So many of em can't be bothered to
do something about it, they expect everything on a plate.


--
MrBitsy

reducing congestion
 

W K wrote:

snip

You live in london don't you.

Work and live in Hertfordshire.
--
MrBitsy

reducing congestion
 

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
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.

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.

Has property law changed in the last tweve years?



Ah at last, the standard "**** you Jack, I'm OK" attitude.

reducing congestion
 

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
Cast_Iron wrote...

"MrBitsy" wrote:

Conor wrote:

says...

The world is full of people who would rather live in a/the house
they can't afford to buy.

This applies to people living and working in a rural community.
People
like agricultural workers.

How about moving somewhere where they can afford to buy - the rest of
us
have to do it.
I write software but can't afford to buy a new house in the town I
live.
Do I have a reasonable gripe against someone that moved out of London
or should I just move where I can afford a property?
Who are 'agricultural workers' to get special treatment?

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.

reducing congestion
 

"JNugent" wrote the following
in:

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?

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.

Has property law changed in the last tweve years?

Your whole argument is completely irrelevant to what I was saying. Does
the fact that there is no law against something mean it is good and has
no negative effects? 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. I was merely pointing out
that while a second home may make be less of a burden to local
authorities, it is also an inefficient allocation of resources and so
should definitely not be lightly taxed. This would remove one of the
disincentives to buying another home and thus encourage inefficient
resource allocation.

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

"Handlebar catch and nipple."

reducing congestion
 

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)

reducing congestion
 

"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.

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

"Handlebar catch and nipple."

reducing congestion
 

"JNugent" wrote in message
...

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).

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

reducing congestion
 

"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."

reducing congestion
 

"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."

reducing congestion
 

"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

reducing congestion
 

"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."

reducing congestion
 

"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.

reducing congestion
 

"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

reducing congestion
 

reducing congestion
 

reducing congestion
 

reducing congestion
 

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.