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?

"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.

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.


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.

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

Cast_Iron wrote:


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


It's **** or be ****ed, unfortunately. That's why we are supposed to
have governments and leaders to guide us.

Silk wrote:
Cast_Iron wrote:


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


It's **** or be ****ed, unfortunately. That's why we are
supposed to have governments and leaders to guide us.

Are you admitting by that statement that you are sufficiently unintelligent
that you are incapable of treating other people in a reasonable manner?

Cast_Iron wrote:


Are you admitting by that statement that you are sufficiently unintelligent
that you are incapable of treating other people in a reasonable manner?


No, I'm simply being realistic. One person making a "stand" cannot do
much on their own. Governments need to impliment policies that encourage
fairness within the limits of practicality. It's one thing being nice to
people in the street and generally being a good citizen; it's quite
another matter when serious, life changing, amounts of money are involved.

"Silk" wrote in message
...
Cast_Iron wrote:


Are you admitting by that statement that you are sufficiently
unintelligent
that you are incapable of treating other people in a reasonable manner?


No, I'm simply being realistic. One person making a "stand" cannot do
much on their own. Governments need to impliment policies that encourage
fairness within the limits of practicality. It's one thing being nice to
people in the street and generally being a good citizen; it's quite
another matter when serious, life changing, amounts of money are involved.


Quite true that, generally speaking, one individual on his own stands little
chance of changing anything unless in a position of authority. However, one
must not confuse an appreciation of reality with NG discussion.

Cast_Iron wrote:

However, one
must not confuse an appreciation of reality with NG discussion.


I never do that. :-)

In article ,
says...

It's **** or be ****ed, unfortunately.

Ah, the standard ideology of the Thatcher years...

--
Conor

"Cogito Eggo Sum" - "I think, therefore I am a waffle"