candapack Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Do you think it will still be cheaper when you have to factor in an exchange rate? :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayjsj Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Peter James - 2014-02-13 8:47 PM Rayjsj - 2014-02-12 1:38 PM I seem to be the 'Odd one out' here ? I don't mind paying my National Trust Membership, They protect miles of the Coastline , Preserve Huge areas like the Lake District Doesn't it make you wonder however the coastline and Lake District existed before we paid the National Trust to 'preserve' it *-) Rayjsj - 2014-02-12 1:38 PM That doesn't mean that Houses should be allowed to be built without consideration to the 'Green Belt' and National Trust owned land. Ray I take it you are comfortably housed, so your view across the 'Green Belt' is more important than other people having a nice home on it *-) (1) they certainly 'existed' but mainly in private hands, with 'No Entry Private Estate' signs dotted about, NO footpaths across such areas, and if any money was to be made by 'Despoiling them' with development, Windfarms etc., Then they went to the highest bidder. (2) yes, comfortably housed,Thankyou, no Green Belt, but a view across the Irish Sea, many,many miles from my place of Birth, sometimes if you want a house, you have to move to a differant area. I did, several times. The green Belt preserves a 'Green Lung' in what would otherwise be an unending sea of Suburbia. Never heard the phrase 'Our Green and Pleasant Land' ?? Long may it remain so. Thanks to the National Trust, National Parks and 'Sensible' planning laws. Ray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Collings Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 Planning is a thorny subject. I do not want the countryside concereted over but one of the fundamental problems is that the average sized home can be built for a reasonable proce but the total cost is hugely inflated by the cost of building land. It seems to me our whole economy relies on the land price bubble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter James Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 George Collings - 2014-02-15 10:27 AM . It seems to me our whole economy relies on the land price bubble. It seems to me our real economy is being strangled by the land price bubble. We can't compete with other countries on price when our housing (or consequently commuting to work) costs are so much higher. Millions of people are living in squalor, young couples forced to live with their in laws. They are learning the only way to get their own place is to have kids and go on benefits. We cannot create an incentive to work, because benefits have to cover housing costs, which are as much as the basic wage. I can see that a few wealthy landlords do really well out of it, and they are obviously more important to this Government than everyone else. I can also see that the keeping over 90% of the country's land area undeveloped for their green belt is more important to some very selfish people than others having their own home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mel B Posted February 15, 2014 Author Share Posted February 15, 2014 Peter James - 2014-02-15 6:54 PM George Collings - 2014-02-15 10:27 AM . It seems to me our whole economy relies on the land price bubble. It seems to me our real economy is being strangled by the land price bubble. We can't compete with other countries on price when our housing (or consequently commuting to work) costs are so much higher. Millions of people are living in squalor, young couples forced to live with their in laws. They are learning the only way to get their own place is to have kids and go on benefits. We cannot create an incentive to work, because benefits have to cover housing costs, which are as much as the basic wage. Really? Sorry but I'm afraid I don't agree with that! I remember when we got married 30+ years ago that things were difficult then, if not more so, with interest rates at 14%! Perhaps if people spent less on other stuff like going out with mates, having the latest gadgets, designer clothes etc, and saved it instead, they'd be able to afford their own place. Also from what I can tell not many young people are prepared to do work on a property to be able to afford their own place, instead they expect to be able to get a 'perfect' one straight away ... not all of them are like this I know, but from what I've observed it seems to be a heck of a lot! As for having kids ... if they can't afford them then they shouldn't have them until they can ... this is NOT harsh, it is reality ... what gives them the 'right' to bring a child into the world without being able to meet its basic needs themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter James Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Well I think someone who thinks his own view over green fields is more important than other people having a home is hardly in any position to lecture others on morals. In any case, it is no longer acceptable to throw women and children out on the street. So they know that if they have kids they will get benefits. We cannot force them to work. And if you inflate housing costs up to the level of the basic wage we cannot incentivise them either. We need to increase the differential between the basic wage and housing costs to incentivise them to work. Whether you blame them, or blame the selfish Nimbys who have forced up house prices, is immaterial. It doesn't alter the fact that between you, you have created an ever increasing benefit bill the country cannot afford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.