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

Jim_B_3

They also rely on our armed forces to enforce our political opinion overseas, for example in Iraq and Afghanistan. Should they have to pay for this?

Iso

Yes they should.

I've lived abroad and paid their (that country's) taxes abroad for all these things and there's no reason why these people shouldn't pay this country's taxes for all these things.

Is your argument that people who don't use something here shouldn't have to pay for it? Do you mean that people who don't have children can be released from paying towards the education system? Or that people who send their children to private schools can be released from paying for the (state) education system?

When I lived abroad I didn't have a child, but I still paid towards their education system. I didn't use their healthcare services, but I still paid towards them. I didn't use their railways, but I still contributed towards them.

'When in Rome...'

Jim_B_3

I can't take the childish argument 'they did it to me so I'm going to do it to them' seriously.

My argument is about provision. I have no children, but the state nonetheless is on standby to educate them. I don't need a doctor today, but one is available. In essence, the govenrment is providing these services to me, even though I choose not to use them right now.

Not every foreign worker has the right to cart their children over here and put them in schools. Accordingly, they should not have to contribute to the provision of places. That example sums up my argument.

Speaking personally, I believe that people who send their children to private schools should get something back from the state for doing so.

Iso

Jim_B wrote:

I can't take the childish argument 'they did it to me so I'm going to do it to them' seriously.

My argument is about provision. I have no children, but the state nonetheless is on standby to educate them. I don't need a doctor today, but one is available. In essence, the govenrment is providing these services to me, even though I choose not to use them right now.

Not every foreign worker has the right to cart their children over here and put them in schools. Accordingly, they should not have to contribute to the provision of places. That example sums up my argument.

Speaking personally, I believe that people who send their children to private schools should get something back from the state for doing so.

I certainly don't mean it as they did it to me so I'll do it to them. What I mean is that if you live in a country it is right that you contribute towards the running cost of the country and your contributions should be the same as the other residents of that country.

Yes, the state is on standby to provide those services to all of us - whether we're British nationals or foreign nationals living here. I don't begrudge paying towards other peoples education and healthcare because I know that they'll pay for mine when/if I need it.

Anyhow, we've strayed off the core subject for long enough don't you think? Perhaps we should get back to why it's so hard to get on the property ladder? Sorry for leading you astray!

Jim_B_3

I agree that living somewhere, one should pay towards running costs. I think we diverge in that I think foreign workers should receive a discount for any services not available to them, whatever those services may be.

We all benefit from the education of every child; I simply feel that organising a child's education separately should attract a discount on the grounds that paying privately removes that burden from the taxpayer and also improves the education of those still in the state system. On a purely personal note, I am horrified by the prospect of not being able to afford a decent education for any children I may have, so my argument here may have an amotional factor affecting it.

Anyway, house prices are high because we're in a boom fueled by cheap credit. So sayeth Jimbo. Does anyone know of any decent commodities funds, by the by?

lisyloo

Obviously I'm not planning an armed uprising

I think others can draw their own conclusions as you still haven't answered the questions put to you and instead made up some stuff that you have no intention of doing and posted some pictures related to the stuff that you aren't going to do and isn't going to happen.

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 personally think we have gone much too far already.
Climate change is now being evidenced as a result of our actions.
Lake chad is disappearing and the ice caps are melting.
Yes, of course you can make a decision in favour of your own personal convenience but I believe this is now affecting us in OUR lifetimes.
You will probably say that's "tired and cliched" but I think it really is happening and people will be forced to change their habits.

For exmaple we are already running out of water in the South East so restrictions have been imposed.
Vegetable prices are likely to go higher as Europes harvest comes in much early and some of it will be ruined.
Expect more of the same.

Jim_B_3

I interpreted Poor Dave's question to be about what changes to make, rather than the mechanics of effecting these changes. Given that his coupled question was about deciding what counts as fair, I believe my interpretation to be valid. Furthermore, such an interpretation was consistent with the direction of the conversation.

You subsequently asked me what the mechanics of these changes would be. I chose not to answer that question. What conclusion you draw from that is entirely up to you and bothers me not one jot. It is quite possible for an argument to be valid without the arguer trying to bring his conclusions into reality.

I believe that building some houses on some green fields is not a major factor in climate change. For what it's worth, we have more than enough water in the UK; our problems lie in the distribution system. I suggest there is a balance to be struck; we can all live in tiny little boxes so as not to disturb 'nature', whatever that is, or we can give ourselves a better quality of life by expanding and suffering the consequences. Somewhere there is a happy medium, and I believe that some more houses on some green fields would benefit us more than it would disadvantage us. You believe it would not.

Edited for unnecessarily amusing but inflammatory remarks.

lisyloo

Somewhere there is a happy medium

I kinda agree with you and I did say that I wouldn't like large amounts of green field development not that I would object to any at all.
Some in carefully planned places is probably a good thing.
However a happy medium would be also encouraging use of brown field sites that are empty (and I think there are some tax incentives in place) and also encouraging smaller footprint houses (there are some planning laws in place for that too - which is why I bought and "old style" one that we reckon will be more popular).

Also it would make sense to tax more heavily people who buy holiday homes and leave them empty for the majority of the year (although I'm not sure how many people just leave them lying empty rather than let them out).
My aunt and unncle have 2 flats that they commute between. If they are consuming too much housing (and subsequently other people can't buy a house) then they should be charged more via the tax system to discourage this behaviour.

lynzpower

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.

I really could not agree with this more. I have lost count of colleagues that have come from SA, OZ, NZ who set themselves up on a contractor income tax system and basically pay tax at the min wage equivalent while earning 40k a year. Its just not fair and I strongly believe this HAS to be sorted out. We are losing millions from the economy that could be used for better things. Incidentally, the NHS *has* by law to provide emergency healthcare to anyone needing it in the UK and the parents have a duty to ensure that their children are educated and the LEA has a duty to provide school places for each child requiring one in the UK.

I understand that the net migration figures ( altohugh I may be out of date here) is that more people leave the UK than come, although some of those of course will be foreign nationals going back to thier homelands, so Im not convinced of the stats.

The bottom line for me is that if someone is willing to pay half a milion for a one bed flat, no vendor in thier right mind would say, oh actually, no Ill only take 100k for it as thats what its worth, every vendor will want pretty much as much as they can for the property- isnt that the MSE way?

theres loads of brownfield building going on here in east london, although some of it to my mind is ridiculous, ie the olympic "village" we could have used that for much needed housing, but no, we choose to use this for a sodding velodrome. Genius. And charge *us* for the privelidge. Yet again the government is acting on the pomp and fanfares, while there are plenty of 5 person families living in one bedroom flats. I MEAN COME ON! Land, they are not making any more! Look at some parts of Manchesters commonwealth provision. A mate of mine worked for an inward investment co, and his job was to try and flog the land that the gov had spent millions on making provision for the commonwealth- selling the land with the intention of levelling it for call centres or even - housing. WASTE WASTE WASTE. Waste of money, waste of time, waste of consulations waste waste waste.

Another issue for me is that if there were adequate amount of secure council housing- that residents can afford to live in across the lifecourse, then this would mean a reduction in a) BTL b) FTB getting stretched to the death.

Again, supply and demand. Reduce the demand by having decent quality homes for those who need them, and reduce the psychology that you can have a home of your own without shelling out thousands per year to the banks.

Im not a fan of building on greenbelt, in fact Id go radical to the end and say second holiday houses, NO, you dont NEED one. this country is in dire housing straits and greed of the few isnt helping. In cuba housing is provided on the basis that you have x amount of people in your household, this is the size of the property you will be given. Now Im not saying this extremity must be considered here, but a middle ground somewhere might be a good idea. Here you can have a 20 bed house a la celebrity style, with one person staying in it every now and then, but a 7 person household in a 2 bed flat. Re-distribution has to be rediscovered!!! Why not tax people extra for having a home thats way too big for their needs? A guest room would be fine to my mind, but if you have a place thats too big for you at the mo, you get a single persons DISCOUNT on the council tax. Why not tax people for wasting one of the most precious resources we have? Because yet again if you can *afford* something then the outcome is that thus, you should have it.

Anyway thats my sunday rant over- anyone for :coffee:

meanmachine_2

According to "the greatest newspaper in the world" today (oh by the way that's the Express, describing itself), Brown is "after our homes".

Anyone got the scaremongering details on that one?

Maybe it'll make the Express less keen to trumpet rises in property inflation. After all, if you're making so much money from doing nowt, why shouldn't the government get a slice?