Rift grows between young and old

Going4TheDream

suburbanwifey wrote: »

Yip, they do, a lot of them, not all though. On the subject of holidays, if someone works hard enough and can afford 3 holidays a year, why shouldn't they? The poor really do resent those that work hard, play hard and get more don't they.

That is because many people lack aspiration and are happy to sit around bemoaning their situation rather than doing any thing to change it .

Unless people are really fortunate, most people who do well for themselves have a goal/plan and use short term goals and plans to achieve that and focus on achieving that, rather than playing the woe is me card, young and old alike

pqrdef

PaulF81 wrote: »

I was talking about uk planning laws. And there is plenty of evidence, open the Telegraph, wanton nimbyism and hatred of new sensible planning laws. Happy that their little castle has been developed, boomers now want to keep the planning drawbridge firmly shut.other ways

You're obviously not greasing the right palms. Round here, people seem to have no trouble at all getting planning permission to squeeze new houses into any silly space. Of course the builder's bill for the job will include the costs of some councillor's extension. I think it's called planning gain.

pqrdef

PaulF81 wrote: »

And there was me confused by all the council house jobless walking around in the latest designer clothes

You don't think they pay shop prices?

suburbanwifey

pqrdef wrote: »

You don't think they pay shop prices?

The fact that they can afford shop prices on our backs is what is the problem!

PaulF81

pqrdef wrote: »

You're obviously not greasing the right palms. Round here, people seem to have no trouble at all getting planning permission to squeeze new houses into any silly space. Of course the builder's bill for the job will include the costs of some councillor's extension. I think it's called planning gain.

I wasnt talking about building on a postage stamp. I am talking about building decent homes on 1/8-1/4 acre plots, the sort of greenbelt that the suburbs were built on decades ago, without restriction.

We need to tear up planning density specifications, then offer tax breaks to individuals hoping to self-build with restrictive sale covenants placed on the property once its built. Its been done before, I dont see why we cant build on greenbelt again.

PaulF81

pqrdef wrote: »

You don't think they pay shop prices?

No, from what I saw from the riots, I dare say they dont. But I bet you would have been the first to complain if they had been shot up by rubber bullets wouldnt you?

A._Badger

PaulF81 wrote: »

I was talking about uk planning laws. And there is plenty of evidence, open the Telegraph, wanton nimbyism and hatred of new sensible planning laws. Happy that their little castle has been developed, boomers now want to keep the planning drawbridge firmly shut.

It has nothing to do with "boomers" (a ridiculous piece of shorthand used by the envious to bypass the troublesome business of thinking). What it has to do with is preventing what little remains of rural Southern England being turned into an endless estate of jerry-built housing, punctuated by retail sheds.

There is plenty of suitable building land in the UK - both urban and rural. True, it tends to be situated in the North, but that's life, I'm afraid. No one has a God-given right to live anywhere they please. And certainly no right to further despoil an already ravaged landscape.

I would quite like to have lived in South Devon but it was too expensive for me when I was looking to escape from London, so I don't.

That's just how it is. Better get used to it or you will end-up a very sad and bitter old man.

Brallaqueen

SingleSue wrote: »

I operate a treat system for exam results (only low value treats, my budget does not allow for expensive ones) - the result? Better exam grades and more competitive children...oh and a poorer mother! :rotfl:

As an example, my eldest son went from being predicted all F/G in his GCSEs, he ended up with 10 A-C GCSEs including English and Maths.

Good for you SingleSue :T

pqrdef

PaulF81 wrote: »

No, from what I saw from the riots, I dare say they dont.

I don't think rioting plays that big a role in the chav economy.

PaulF81 wrote: »

But I bet you would have been the first to complain if they had been shot up by rubber bullets wouldnt you?

Since you ask, no, I hate mayhem. But I do think the widening gap between rich and poor had a lot to do with the attitudes of the rioters.

Which has a lot to do with the topic of this thread. But your own complaint seems to be that the old and rich are selfish and obstreperous and an obstacle to the efforts of the young and rich to become just as selfish and obstreperous and hated in their turn.

Well that's the value system they live by, but they should fight it out amongst themselves. It all reminds me of medieval emperors, gaining the crown by murdering relatives and then becoming the victims of their next rivals.

cotleigh

PaulF81 wrote: »

i would prefer we didnt pay them. it doesnt stop other nations being sucessful. why should the weak and the lazy hold back the economy?

Very well said. If the "putter-inners" in terms of tax did not have to pay for those who are "taker-outers" from the general kitty, things would be much better.

Let them fend for themselves.