Why now so hard to get that 1st rung on the propery ladder compared to years gone by?

lisyloo

Can you expand on those ecological reasons?

Yes, no problem.
I wouldn't not want "green field" sites to be replaced with concrete tarmac and roads because I think it damages the environment.
It removes wildlife habitats, and increases travel etc.
I have no problem with building on "brown field" sites.

the protest marches etc., I am waiting for you to organise them.

Ok, I am a little confused.
PoorDave asked you in post #49 how you proposed to change things. I repeated the question in post #57.
You stated "Armed uprising by an outraged citizenry" in post #58.
So it would appear that what you said in that post isn't true.
So can we believe what you say?

I will not be organising marches because I have no desire to change the system. I am happy with the housing market being driven by supply and demand. I accept that there are upsides and downsides to this system.

You are the person pressing for action over discussion.

I am not "pressing" for action and that is not the kind of action I think is worthwhile.
I think it is better to work hard and earn or save money rather than to spend time organise marches which will have no effect.
Discussion, dreams and complaints all have their place up to a point.
But is seems logical to me that those people who cannot afford to get on the ladder would be better off spending their time earning money rather than spending lots of time discussing/dreaming/complaining.

lisyloo

you need to build vertically rather than horizontally. That way you can get many more dwellings onto the 'footprint' used.

Agreed, this is one way that the planning laws are changing.

where the developer sells it to the first buyer for less profit than he would normally make. The first buyer then sells it on and makes the profit that the developer didn't take.

So are you saying that there is no point in governement intervention, because supply and demand will always win out?
In which case this sort of scheme (and right to buy) is really only benefitting a few at the expense of tax payers and therefore not really in the public interest.

Jim_B_3

I'd best make this clear. If I were planning a revolution by force, I would not divulge the details here. Obviously I'm not planning an armed uprising. No no no. Not at all, comrades. <wink>

Is destruction of wildlife habitat such a bad thing? In a perfect world we'd never destroy anything, but we have to choose a compromise between suiting ourselves and not damaging animals. People make this compromise every day.

I disagree that new towns increase travel. Some people would move to the new town to be closer to work. Some people would work in the new town. I would argue that the increased house prices in the areas where people's workplaces are centred has already increased travel (as people are forced to live further and further away from where they work) and that new towns in the right places would work against this.

Iso

lisyloo wrote:

So are you saying that there is no point in governement intervention, because supply and demand will always win out?

Yes, I am saying that there is no point in government intervention with 'houses sold cheap because of political pressure' because it won't solve the problem.

lisyloo wrote:

In which case this sort of scheme (and right to buy) is really only benefitting a few at the expense of tax payers and therefore not really in the public interest.

Congratulations, you've just scored 10/10! Though 'at the expense of tax payers' should probably read 'at the expense of all other UK residents'.

While I'm on the subject of UK residents another thing that would be very helpful in reducing soaring housing costs (in London in particular) is if 'foreign nationals' were taxed at the same rates as us and actually paid taxes in the UK. Don't start accusing me of being racist, I'm not. But I do begrudge people living and earning here and not paying a penny of income tax etc because they are foreign and 'working' the system.

Jim_B_3

Should they be taxed at the same rate? How about a proportional rate, based on the services open to them?

Iso

Jim_B wrote:

Should they be taxed at the same rate? How about a proportional rate, based on the services open to them?

Yes, they should be taxed at the same rate. Why should they pay a proportional rate? What services wouldn't be open to them as UK tax payers?

Jim_B_3

Are they entitled to a state pension? Granted, that's (allegedly) paid for out of NI rather than tax, but NI is just a differently labelled tax.

Iso

Yes, contributions made into the UK pension scheme would be credited to their country's pension scheme when they go back to their country.

Jim_B_3

What if there is no such pension scheme? What if the other country does not accept such payments? It would be much simpler to just not take this money from them.

Anyway, assuming from this that you do accept that if they are denied some services, they should not have to contribute to them, we open the door to discounts for not using the education services, armed forces, embassies etc overseas. I'm sure I can think of some more.

Iso

Jim_B wrote:

What if there is no such pension scheme? What if the other country does not accept such payments? It would be much simpler to just not take this money from them.

Which countries are you talking about? There are tax treaties with most western countries and it is, generally, these expats that I am talking about.

And they do use our services - they send their kids to our schools, they use our hospitals, they use our motorways, they rely on our army to protect them while they're living here.