|
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. |
reducing congestion
|
reducing congestion
|
reducing congestion
"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 |
reducing congestion
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 |
reducing congestion
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) |
reducing congestion
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. |
reducing congestion
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. |
reducing congestion
Purditer wrote:
Why is always that the people who are most against second homes are those who cannot afford them? Jealousy? Of course |
reducing congestion
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. |
reducing congestion
Clive George wrote:
"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? Yes. |
reducing congestion
Greg Hennessy wrote:
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 16:52:32 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron" wrote: 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. No, the standard f*ck you and your bleeding heart socialist bilge. Yawn |
reducing congestion
Less controversially, isn't it time that second homes attracted the normal (ie non-discount) rate of council tax? only if occupied - as council tax is meant to pay for services and an empty house requires exactly none. You should be forced to declare how much time you spend in the houses and pay pro-rata, and if you rent the second home out at all it should attract full rate. |
reducing congestion
Greg Hennessy wrote:
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. A one hour commute by your favoured mode is only about ten miles at most. Are you suggesting that there are open fields within that area? |
reducing congestion
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:40:57 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote: errrr, no. The only thing driving up house prices is greed. Only an emoting naif could utter such nonsense. 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. |
reducing congestion
errrr, no. The only thing driving up house prices is greed. Correct - if the banks can't make money by high interest rates they'll do it by smaller rates on bigger loans! |
reducing congestion
"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
... I buy a second house. I won't be spending much time there, Then why bother, why not simply stay in holiday accommodation and contribute to the local economy? Plus it may well work out cheaper. 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. If only everyone did that, but there are many who will use a tradesman from their own area, "because they know him". No gain to the local economy. I'm not moving an existing house, so all the furniture, tv, hi-fi, video etc, have to be bought locally. On the contrary, they can be bought anywhere. Where do you suppose a permanent local resident buys their furniture etc? Some holiday home owners when setting up simply move their existing furniture from their permanent home to the holiday cottage and renew from suppliers in their area. No gain to the local economy. How many years' food shopping will a permanent resident have to do to put the same amount of money into the local economy? Many holiday home owners simply take food from their permanent home's nearest supermarket. No gain to 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. That's your way of doing things, not everyone is quite so houseproud or they will send someone they know. But the net result is that buying a holiday home is depriving someone else of a permanent home. |
reducing congestion
Stimpy wrote:
It worked fine for some of us thank you very much (age 42 and semi-retired) The current fashionable theory always works for someone, good for you. |
reducing congestion
"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. Mikael |
reducing congestion
Tim S Kemp wrote:
Less controversially, isn't it time that second homes attracted the normal (ie non-discount) rate of council tax? only if occupied - as council tax is meant to pay for services and an empty house requires exactly none. You should be forced to declare how much time you spend in the houses and pay pro-rata, and if you rent the second home out at all it should attract full rate. What are the possibilities, do you suppose, of a local authority devising a scheme to monitor usage and then arriving at the appropriate amount of Council Tax payable? The solution is simple, price them out of existence. |
reducing congestion
"Cast_Iron" wrote in message ... 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. The richest people in this country are Estate agents and Lawyers, and they get rich by screwing other people. |
reducing congestion
"Doki" wrote in message ... Oliver Keating wrote in message ... 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. Why is owning a second home "the ultimate frivolous activity"? It's well known that property is as a general rule a solid investment. You get the benefit of having an appreciating asset whilst having a house in the country, or nearer your family etc. Why should activities you consider frivolous be taxed heavily, rather than ones I consider frivolous? Why not tax gambling like mad? Oh it is in financial terms a relatively sensible thing to do -as an investment, but it is only accessible to the very rich. Incidentally, I think gambling should be banned alltogether (including the "lotto") but that is another story. 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. The argument about heavily taxing high earners is going on elsewhere in the thread, so I won't repeat myself here. What I'd like to know is this: If you're so bothered why go to the frivolity of buying a new car when you've got a couple of apparently servicable cars knocking around? Why not give what you've lost in depreciation on the CLK to charity? You don't actually give a toss, but like to think, and for others to think that you do. Same goes for you being bothered about the environment. I don't suppose you considered that manufacturing a new car is widely acknowledged to pollute more than running an old one. If you're going to constantly bang on about your politics you ought to have the decency to stand by your views. blah blah blah |
reducing congestion
"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). You are obviously very rich. 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. Increasing income tax is a political no-no. Besides, houses are a form of investment, which is only accessible to the very rich. -- Duncan |
reducing congestion
"MrBitsy" wrote in message ... Oliver Keating wrote: snip 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. Buying a second home can be a sensible option. My mother in law is 79. She was paying £250 per month in rent. We purchased it for £18,000 (after the discount as she lived there for years) with a mortgage of £90 per month. She now lives rent free and we get a second home (towards our retirement income) with a current value of £100,000. If she was to die soon, we would have 2 homes and we may not sell the second - does that make us 'rich kids' and should it make us a target for massive tax? You could get around a second home tax if the home was owned in your mothers name. And its far too little to be elegible for inherentence tax when she dies, so what would be wrong with that? In 1993, I was an unemployed taxi driver and my wife was a dinner lady. I am now a software engineer and she is a teacher. We both went back to college and university for 5 years. During that time our sons didn't know what a holiday was and we lived out of jumble sales. I was receiving £120 per week in benefits and had to take a cut in that amount when I started uni. You want to clobber 'rich kids' in an effort to ease congestion on the roads - what about incentive to get people better off? We lived on £1500 a year then and £55,000 a year now, but that was done through sheer hard work. Take your average 'I won't come off benifits until I earn £200 per week' moron - how are they going to deal with your clobber the rich kids attitude? I don't know -- MrBitsy |
reducing congestion
"Doki" wrote in message ... "Oliver Keating" 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: 1) Social justice What on earth is social justice? I don't know if you've ever noticed, but people who have a fair bit of money chucking around generally have it for a reason. The average rich person probably runs a business which employs a fair few people, or is high up in a business and through their work ensures the business is profitable, thus employing people. It's not like they've made their money by walking around flogging the working classes and killing their children. The aforementioned rich ******* and his employees go and spend money, which makes more jobs for the people selling goods and providing services. You tax people purely because they're rich and all you do is put off people from being enterprising. Well, this is starting to get into a very old left vs right argument, but... The fact of the matter is that while it is true rich people may work harder than their poorer counterparts, they also rely on the social backbone to gain that wealth, they could not become wealthy unless there were a basic infrastructure around them - be that social, financial and legal. Many people become highly rich through chance, quite a lot do so by ruthelessly scewing people over, setting high profit margins, or owning a resource which gives them effective monopoly. It is only right that such people should be asked to contribute more back to society. 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. You will encourage enterprise, and according to Conservative government this will eventually trickle down to help the poorest member of society. It doesn't work. Over the last 20 years, the middle class has become steadily more wealthy thanks to economic growth, but the working class have remained pretty much static, they haven't shared in the growth at all. |
reducing congestion
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:07:40 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote: 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. A one hour commute by your favoured mode is only about ten miles at most. What are you wittering on about ? Are you suggesting that there are open fields within that area? If you had a point you would have made it by now. 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. |
reducing congestion
"Vulpes Argenteus (formerly M)" wrote in message ... On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 19:19:42 -0000, "Oliver Keating" wrote: "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: 1) Social justice 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. Therefore ... accepting your arguments, the Government should tax the rich very heavily and directly. Taxing people who have second homes is inefficient - you use the word 'clearly' but don't / can't justify. Of course the Government hasn't got the guts to tax heavily - that would involve looking less voter friendly ! Of course, there is no need to go to extremes. Taxing an economy very heavily has negative effects because you are distorting the markets and reducing incentives, so a compromise must be met between how much poverty you allow vs overall prosperity. 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. Excatly, it is underutilised, and in a country with limited homes and people finding it difficult to buy, anyone not making proper use of property should be made to compensate the rest of society through the tax system! |
reducing congestion
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. |
reducing congestion
|
reducing congestion
|
reducing congestion
|
reducing congestion
|
reducing congestion
|
reducing congestion
"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. |
reducing congestion
"Oliver Keating" wrote in
message The richest people in this country are Estate agents and Lawyers, and they get rich by screwing other people. That's complete tosh -- just how many of the richest 500 people in the country are estate agents or lawyers? I suspect not one of the top 500 is an estate agent, and any lawyers in that group probably got that rich in some other occupation. And by what definition do either of these professions get rich by "screwing other people" -- they provide a service that those people are apparently prepared to pay for in a free market, which is more than is true of the average denizen of a university (including Imperial College). And before you start a socialist rant against me, I am not an estate agent or lawyer, have done very little to enrich either profession, don't have a second home and do have a master's degree from IC. |
reducing congestion
"JNugent" wrote the following
in: wrote: Greg Hennessy wrote: [ ... ] 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. A one hour commute by your favoured mode is only about ten miles at most. Are you suggesting that there are open fields within that area? A one hour journey by car can take one (easily) up to 60 miles (probably not a lot more, unless one lives adjacent to a motorway interchange). You'll have to travel a fair distance from Charing Cross before you can do anything more than 30mph and even that is pretty ambitious as an average speed, especially considering the fact that you'll face congestion and a lot of traffic lights. I'd be absolutely amazed if you could travel as much as 60 miles. Even half that seems optimistic. So what are you talking about? More to the point, what are you talking about? -- message by Robin May, but you can call me Mr Smith. Enjoy the Routemaster while you still can. "Handlebar catch and nipple." |
reducing congestion
The richest people in this country are Estate agents and Lawyers, and they
get rich by screwing other people. Can you count prostitutes in that description? |
reducing congestion
Besides, houses are a form of investment, which is only accessible to the
very rich. Not at all. Easy thing to do is rent a cheap flat to live in, buy a small house that's run down, do all the work on it yourself, rent it out, buy a slightly larger one... etc... etc... |
reducing congestion
"Tim S Kemp" wrote the following in:
The richest people in this country are Estate agents and Lawyers, and they get rich by screwing other people. Can you count prostitutes in that description? They don't usually get rich, do they? -- message by Robin May, but you can call me Mr Smith. Enjoy the Routemaster while you still can. "Handlebar catch and nipple." |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:42 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk