Capping House Price Inflation

[RogerS]

Jacob, How on earth can it be against someone's human rights not to give them something? You've never given me anything so I suppose I should report you. The communist Brazilian half wit should try sorting out the millions living in her own slums.

Phil..keep your sanity....don't engage the troll.

 

[Lons]

When people say "too many people on this tiny island" etc. I always suggest that they should do the decent thing and jump in a pond or something. But it always turns out that they don't see themselves as surplus - it's always somebody else! Surprise surprise!

The real issue is not too many people but rather too little constructive government/management to provide for the needs of all. And the answers are simple too - build more is one. Another would be to occupy underused housing - 2nd homes, holiday lets etc. Perhaps by the incentive of a massive increase in bedroom tax extended to the whole population but means tested to avoid punishing the poor as the amazingly stupid current system does. Perhaps make the tax take equal to the cost of building the public housing still needed. That'd be simple and fair.
We've got the tax principle in place , why not use it? There is more surplus wealth around nowadays than there ever was - for starters we could tax this lot very easily - I bet all their bedrooms aren't in use!

There you go.... I knew if we waited long enough, Jacob would come up with a perfect solution, ( doesn't he always :lol: ) (hammer)

It's easy then -

* Allow anyone and everyone without exception, to come and live on this little island which it seems may not be overpopulated after all. :wink:
* Tax everyone who had the audacity not to smoke, drink or gamble, save hard then decide to spend their money on a larger house and now have a spare bedroom or three. Despite the fact that most of us already contribute more than average to local authority housing by way of higher council tax charges. Not everyone borrowed on a mortgage which was more than they could afford!

What about going the whole hog and forcing anyone with a spare bedroom to take in an immigrant or better still, the whole family?
Why don't we demolish all existing houses, outlaw anything less than 20 stories high and build huge blocks of flats then force all of us to live in 1 bedroom apartments (no garden or workshops allowed)? Oh - that's been done before in certain communist countries has it not?
There would of course be no entrepreneurs, no incentive to build a business, employ others or take financial risk, unless you happen to deal drugs perhaps.

perhaps if you're so concerned with "being fair" Jacob, you could give away your tools and machinery and allow a family from afar to live in your workshop and as you're so damning of the government and profess to know better, you should go into politics :wink:

The current "bedroom tax" will be unfair to some but there is a need to at least do something to allocate local authority housing more appropriately. As an example, my parents lived in the same 4 bedroom council house for more than 40 years however after the kids had gone they had 9 years just on their own and then 6 with just mum after my dad died. 15 years in a house that would have accommodated a family - crazy!!!

Bob

 

[Jacob]

There are also well off people with much more property under used. Should they be exempt from the pressure to downsize? Do you think your parents are second class citizens who should be forced to move on every time their circumstances change?
In an case it wouldn't be easy for the less well off - house prices and rents go ever upwards.
It would be a good thing if people could move more easily - but that is the whole problem; they can't.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Well off people have bought their spare capacity - they are welcome to do as they wish with it. Why should they pay for someone else's? Your argument starts with the basic surmise that a large percentage of the population has a god given right to have their property paid for, not only by someone else, but for the whole of their lives. I we all lived in your socialist utopia, where would the money come from? the tooth fairy?

 

[Jacob]

..... Your argument starts with the basic surmise that a large percentage of the population has a god given right to have their property paid for, ....

No it doesn't.
I suppose my basic surmise is that we are all responsible for all our mutual well being and quality of life.
It's called "civilisation". Quite a recent project - only 6 or 7 thousand years old (nothing, in evolutionary terms) so it's no surprise that we have a lot of right-wing throwbacks who seem only recently to have arrived here from their caves and jungles. :lol: :lol:

 

[Lons]

Well off people have bought their spare capacity - they are welcome to do as they wish with it. Why should they pay for someone else's? Your argument starts with the basic surmise that a large percentage of the population has a god given right to have their property paid for, not only by someone else, but for the whole of their lives. I we all lived in your socialist utopia, where would the money come from? the tooth fairy?

+1

There are also well off people with much more property under used. Should they be exempt from the pressure to downsize? Do you think your parents are second class citizens who should be forced to move on every time their circumstances change?
In an case it wouldn't be easy for the less well off - house prices and rents go ever upwards.
It would be a good thing if people could move more easily - but that is the whole problem; they can't.

There is a huge difference between people who have spent their money (no matter where they got it unless by illegal means) on property and those who live in local authority housing for whatever reason.
The later was supposed to be for those who can't afford to buy their own, or rent privately and as such is subsidised by all of us who pay taxes. No problem with that, after all that's where my roots are however, the size of the accommodation should be relevant to their needs which several spare bedrooms are not. Private owners have the choice to downsize and must pay the associated costs of selling, buying and legal costs as well as all the additional tax that applies to those fees. Or.. they can elect to stay and pay the higher costs of running a larger home. Council tennant rents are subsidised.

And for your information, my parents, both now dead were very certainly not 2nd class citizens and neither is anyone else who fall on hard times or are struggling to survive but you live in cloud cuckooland if you believe that everyone should be brought down to the same level.

I repeat: if your beliefs are so strong, put your money where your mouth is and give up your workshop, tools, car etc. to those many "unfortunates" who don't have such things or choose to spend their money elsewhere.

Perhaps everyone should be limited to 4 chisels, 1 plane, 1 drill and 1 tape measure :lol: Why should one guy be allowed to buy say a festool domino when I don't have one? I really must consider donating my Audi to some poor deserving soul - who wants it? :wink: :lol:

Bob

 

[RogerS]

.......
I repeat: if your beliefs are so strong, put your money where your mouth is and give up your workshop, tools, car etc. to those many "unfortunates" who don't have such things or choose to spend their money elsewhere.

Perhaps everyone should be limited to 4 chisels, 1 plane, 1 drill and 1 tape measure :lol: Why should one guy be allowed to buy say a festool domino when I don't have one? I really must consider donating my Audi to some poor deserving soul - who wants it? :wink: :lol:

Bob

Spot on! Jacob won't agree, naturally. Well, how can he when he has this above his workbench :lol:

 

[Phil Pascoe]

The one and only thing not thought out was that there are not enough single bedroom places - councils should have been given a couple of years to rectify that. All social (I hate that word) housing should be let short term at commercial rates, then the tenants could explain to social security why they expect a larger house than they need. Jacob, my wife and I are responsible for our children's and no one else's wellbeing - I am not responsible for other people, any more than other people are responsible for me and mine.

 

[Jacob]

T.....I am not responsible for other people, any more than other people are responsible for me and mine.

Yes you are and yes we are.
I doubt there is anyone in Britain who lives without giving to or taking anything from society - could be some isolated nutter living in a forest somewhere*, but I doubt it.

PS * RogerS? :lol: :lol:

 

[Lons]

could be some isolated nutter living in a forest somewhere*, but I doubt it.

Wrong again! :lol: :lol:
.

 

[Jacob]

Thought for the day:
"Homelessness is caused not by too many people crowding a too small country, but by too few people owning too much land."

 

[Phil Pascoe]

No, it's not.

 

[Jacob]

And it's even worse in Scotland
PS A bit old that link. Not that anything has changed much.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

The first link doesn't work. Why do think allowing tenant farmers to buy their farms would have any influence on homeless figures? A great non sequitur.

 

[Jacob]

The first link doesn't work. Why do think allowing tenant farmers to buy their farms would have any influence on homeless figures? A great non sequitur.

The big picture of land ownership is closely paralleled by buildings ownership, throughout Britain.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Thought for the day - the benefits bill since 2000 has reached £14,000,000,000,000.