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!
So what's the solution?
Comments
-
and the counter argument to that is that it brings a lot of money into that area bylemonjelly wrote: »I'm not convinced with this arguement chucky.
The premis is, I I have enough money to buy more than 1 house, why shouldn't I?
The counter debate is that it inflates prices, & there will be people who do need a house who are denied the resource.
Look at an analogy. I have a big enough army to take over country X. I've worked hard on my army, invested time & resources into it, and have greater armed forces than you or many others.
Does that mean I am entitled to just wade on in where-ever I want?
a. the 2nd home owner buying for over inflated prices that the area would never have achieved.
b. people from London are better looking than people in Devon and by pro-creation will improve the gene pool in Devon. better looking people get better jobs etc... etc... you get me?0 -
lemonjelly wrote: »Look at an analogy. I have a big enough army to take over country X. I've worked hard on my army, invested time & resources into it, and have greater armed forces than you or many others.
Does that mean I am entitled to just wade on in where-ever I want?
TBF when as that stopped any one invading a country.
I talked about this in the past, that money is the new dominance in nature unfortunatly.
Instead of survival of the fittest is is survival of the richest. (that does not mean I agree with it, it means that is what I see)
It is hard not to see the parallels of money and dominance in nature.
The closer you are to the top the easier your access to everything is, until you lose your place.0 -
and the counter argument to that is that it brings a lot of money into that area by
a. the 2nd home owner buying for over inflated prices that the area would never have achieved.
b. people from London are better looking than people in Devon and by pro-creation will improve the gene pool in Devon. better looking people get better jobs. you get me?
Yes. I'm not saying your arguement is right or wrong.
What I am saying, is that the fact that person A has more money than person B doesn't make it OK for them to be buying up all the houses, and there are/could be adverse social impacts.
You initially said:i really don't understand the issue with 2nd homes.
if people have the money and want a 2nd property increasing tax won't stop them - there will be alternatives for them to be able to get that 2nd home.
I was critiquing your reason as to why you feel it is OK for people with more money to have 2nd homes, or your premiss for asserting it.:) (Not whether or not 2nd home ownership is a good/bad thing).It's getting harder & harder to keep the government in the manner to which they have become accustomed.0 -
TBF when as that stopped any one invading a country.
I talked about this in the past, that money is the new dominance in nature unfortunatly.
Instead of survival of the fittest is is survival of the richest. (that does not mean I agree with it, it means that is what I see)
It is hard not to see the parallels of money and dominance in nature.
The closer you are to the top the easier your access to everything is, until you lose your place.
I've partially answered this in my reply to chucky.
However....
Surely as human beings, we aspire to behave in a (relatively) ethical manner. We are aware of our responsibilities, eg to our fellow man.
As we have evolved, we have observed that certain behaviours are unethical, and we adapt, or even legislate to stop such behaviour. An example of our ethical behaviour.
Therefore, if we do have ethical aspirations, and are ethical creatures, then surely we should look at the ethical implications of our actions.
Therefore, the assertion that "I can do this because I have more money than you" is flawed, based upon us being ethical. Therefore it is incorrect to assert that it is ok for a person to be more entitled to a 2nd home, based purely on that person having more money.The closer you are to the top the easier your access to everything is, until you lose your place.
But that doesn't make it right.It's getting harder & harder to keep the government in the manner to which they have become accustomed.0 -
nobody can argue that it can be a good thing that people that live and work in a certain area are priced out. so no, it's not a good thing.lemonjelly wrote: »Yes. I'm not saying your arguement is right or wrong.
What I am saying, is that the fact that person A has more money than person B doesn't make it OK for them to be buying up all the houses, and there are/could be adverse social impacts.
You initially said:
I was critiquing your reason as to why you feel it is OK for people with more money to have 2nd homes, or your premiss for asserting it.:) (Not whether or not 2nd home ownership is a good/bad thing).
i don't think it's ok for people that have more money to be able to buy more than others. it happens at all levels of all society and i don't think it can be avoided. so by default i don't see a problem with it.
it's human nature unfortunately. ethics and money don't mix...
ps. and i'm still better looking than you!! :eek:0 -
nobody can argue that it can be a good thing that people that live and work in a certain area are priced out. so no, it's not a good thing.
i don't think it's ok for people that have more money to be able to buy more than others. it happens at all levels of all society and i don't think it can be avoided.
it's human nature unfortunately. ethics and money don't mix...
ps. and i'm still better looking than you!! :eek:
I see what you say here, but it does kinda contradict what you initially said:i really don't understand the issue with 2nd homes.
if people have the money and want a 2nd property increasing tax won't stop them - there will be alternatives for them to be able to get that 2nd home.
Oh, and in response to this:ps. and i'm still better looking than you!! :eek:
Your mother disagrees:DIt's getting harder & harder to keep the government in the manner to which they have become accustomed.0 -
lemonjelly wrote: »I've partially answered this in my reply to chucky.
However....
Surely as human beings, we aspire to behave in a (relatively) ethical manner. We are aware of our responsibilities, eg to our fellow man.
As we have evolved, we have observed that certain behaviours are unethical, and we adapt, or even legislate to stop such behaviour. An example of our ethical behaviour.
Therefore, if we do have ethical aspirations, and are ethical creatures, then surely we should look at the ethical implications of our actions.
Therefore, the assertion that "I can do this because I have more money than you" is flawed, based upon us being ethical. Therefore it is incorrect to assert that it is ok for a person to be more entitled to a 2nd home, based purely on that person having more money.
I think that is where we blow smoke up our own !!!!!! some times.
Just because we are "clever animals" does not get past the fact of what we are.
Our needs, how we survive what we are here for are all the same as all other animals.
In evolution for some reason we thought we needed to justify our existence and think about it.
Take everything back off us and you will find that we are not that far from what we actually are.
We try to hide it and think of ourselves as "civilized" but we are just animals.
I bet Ants think we are complete Knobs.:)0 -
i edited just after you replied to say thislemonjelly wrote: »I see what you say here, but it does kinda contradict what you initially said:
Oh, and in response to this:
Your mother disagrees:Di don't think it's ok for people that have more money to be able to buy more than others. it happens at all levels of all society and i don't think it can be avoided. so by default i don't see a problem with it.0 -
I think that is where we blow smoke up our own !!!!!! some times.
Just because we are "clever animals" does not get past the fact of what we are.
Our needs, how we survive what we are here for are all the same as all other animals.
In evolution for some reason we thought we needed to justify our existence and think about it.
Take everything back off us and you will find that we are not that far from what we actually are.
We try to hide it and think of ourselves as "civilized" but we are just animals.
I bet Ants think we are complete Knobs.:)
Yes, but at the same time, we seperate ourselves from "other animals".
And surely we aspire to behave ethically. Look at the altruism of many wealthy people.
Counter to your arguement, it may suit some for us to look around and be all "me, me, me", but in actuality, we are social creatures. We don't work in isolation. We don't develop in isolation.
The notion of a good human being would surely examine the ethical implications.
If you creating a profit came at the cost of 5 people losing their lives daily, would you think that fair or acceptable? I'd think most humans wouldn't.
(As an aside, perhaps throwing this stuff into a debate isn't best done on an economics forum:o, but that is my fault.:o)It's getting harder & harder to keep the government in the manner to which they have become accustomed.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards