We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
What price is worth paying for cheaper housing.....
HAMISH_MCTAVISH
Posts: 28,592 Forumite
With population growing at 400,000 a year, the only way to avoid massive HPI is to build a few million more houses in the relatively near future.
And the only way to avoid housebuilding on a massive scale is to avoid population growth.
But population growth is only partially from immigration, and the other part from increased life expectancy and birthrate.
So to avoid it, you need to force people to die sooner, and breed less.
Not to mention, without population growth, taxes would need to double to fund the pensions liability.
So I guess you could have cheaper houses, if you were willing to ban immigration, euthanise the old, sterilise the young, and pay twice the taxes you do now.
Which all seems a bit self defeating, really..... Not to mention more expensive than just paying the going rate for a house to begin with.
And the only way to avoid housebuilding on a massive scale is to avoid population growth.
But population growth is only partially from immigration, and the other part from increased life expectancy and birthrate.
So to avoid it, you need to force people to die sooner, and breed less.
Not to mention, without population growth, taxes would need to double to fund the pensions liability.
So I guess you could have cheaper houses, if you were willing to ban immigration, euthanise the old, sterilise the young, and pay twice the taxes you do now.
Which all seems a bit self defeating, really..... Not to mention more expensive than just paying the going rate for a house to begin with.
“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”
0
Comments
-
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »...stuf....
Or more people could live together in the same house. In the 1940's, sometimes there would be 15 people living in a single house.“The ideas of debtor and creditor as to what constitutes a good time never coincide.”
― P.G. Wodehouse, Love Among the Chickens0 -
-
Or more people could live together in the same house. In the 1940's, sometimes there would be 15 people living in a single house.
OK.
Works for me, if you think that is preferable.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
Thrugelmir wrote: »In the early 1900's. In 2 rooms.
Comments, on the OP?
It does seem that some of the bears haven't thought through the consequences of some of the things they call for..... I doubt you fall into that camp though.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
What about stopping people owning second homes which only get used about 20% of the time. Use the existing housing stock more efficiently0
-
What about just banning chavs form breeding? Come on, we all know they don't positively contribute to society and their offspring aren't likely to either...0
-
stueyhants wrote: »What about stopping people owning second homes which only get used about 20% of the time. Use the existing housing stock more efficiently
There are only around 300,000 second/holiday homes.
Around a 3 month supply. Nowhere near enough to make a difference over the next 10 years, when we need to house 4 million more people.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
Blacksheep1979 wrote: »What about just banning chavs form breeding? Come on, we all know they don't positively contribute to society and their offspring aren't likely to either...
I'm up for it. License to breed.
Or, just replace foxes with chavs and give the tories something to hunt that nobody will get offended over.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
I agree with a lot of your well put points Hamish but i don't agree that population growth in our beloved Scotland is a problem...
Total residents:
5,168,000 (2008 est)
5,144,000 (2007 est)
5,116,900 (2006 est)
5,094,800 (2005 est)
5,078,400 (2004 est)
5,057,400 (2003 est)
5,054,800 (2002 est)
5,062,011 (2001 est)
5,083,000 (1991 est)
5,180,200 (1981 est)
5,234,000 (1971 est)
5,201,000 (1961 est)
Source
Also i'm not so sure interest rates will stay low for long but apart from that your sound
0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »OK.
Works for me, if you think that is preferable.
I think its better than euthenasia, which you propose, and probably better than invading russia for some additional lebensraum, which has been tried in the past without success. Interestingly enough, your other policy ( build loads of houses) was tried as part of the chinese stimulus spending http://www.businessinsider.com/chinese-stimulus-spending-constructed-an-empty-city-in-the-middle-of-nowhere-2009-11 .“The ideas of debtor and creditor as to what constitutes a good time never coincide.”
― P.G. Wodehouse, Love Among the Chickens0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards