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

Jim_B_3

Brownfield sites in cities and towns often provide the only open space available. If we're keen on preserving endless green fields, shouldn't we be keener on preserving these open spaces within cities?

Iso

Viz cities, certainly we must keep parks and we should have kept school playing fields (criminal to have allowed them to be sold off and developed) but, personally, I'd far prefer it if brownfield sites are re-developed than greenfield sites for numerous reasons such as it's less likely that an endangered species (flora or fauna) lives on a brownfield site than a greenfield site and a brownfield site isn't generally suitable for farming.

A smaller footprint and more height in new build would be a good option; in some countries you aren't allowed to build a footprint of more than a certain percentage of the plot size.

I also believe the old rating system was a better way of taxing as it taxed housing rather than people.

Jim_B_3

On an aside, I contest the idea that we must protect endangered species (or rather, I've yet to be convinced).

Iso

Jim B - I'm finding it hard to take this seriously - because you have gone from pure communism to pure capitalism in a couple of posts! Are you one of those who swing over the top so to speak?

Are you attempting to stir again? Or do you genuinely not care?

BobProperty

lynzpower wrote:

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......

Having used a limited company like this for over 20 years, I have a few points to make:
One, the law prevented me from being self-employed as most work is through agencies. (maybe prevented is the wrong word - if I wanted to be taxed at a higher going rate than anyone else and have to wait months if not years to get it back, then I could have gone that route - but I wouldn't be SE then either).
Two, employers, including the government, prefer it that way otherwise they'd have thousands of permanent staff on their hands doing nothing every time a project ended/got suspended/ran out of money etc.
Three, there's nothing to stop anyone doing it. It's not just citizens from the colonies who can do it, anyone can. The IT and PetroChemical industries are full of people working like this.
Four, tell your colleagues to change accountant. Directors aren't included in the minimum wage regulations. If they are directors, they are doing it wrong. If they are using an "umbrella" company then they are probably still paying tax but avoiding some NI.
Five, the government attempt to clamp down on this is IR35. The problem is you can't legislate for intent. If I intend to work for myself but only get one large piece of work off one client am I self-employed or an employee? Funny how the benefits of one are not automatically there if the alternative is held not to be the case.

Jacquie_H

I guess I must be lucky with house prices. Here in leafy Lancashire it is still possible to buy a decent house for less than 70K. In fact the cheapest house advertised in this week's local press is £45K. That must make it easier to buy somewhere to live!!

Jim_B_3

Iso wrote:

Jim B - I'm finding it hard to take this seriously - because you have gone from pure communism to pure capitalism in a couple of posts! Are you one of those who swing over the top so to speak?

Are you attempting to stir again? Or do you genuinely not care?

Easy there, tiger. I've certainly not advocated pure communism or pure capitalism. Perhaps we need a thread somewhere for discussing alternative economic ideas; communism and capitalism are but two locations on the many-dimensional economic map, and one of the great social tragedies of the twentieth century is the restriction of economies to a straight line between those two points.

Iso

Are you attempting to stir again? Or do you genuinely not care?

Jim_B_3

All I did was question the idea that we must protect endangered species. Is that really so wrong?

Iso

Surely if we can build on a site that isn't a protected species natural habitat that would be preferable?