Trying to buy a house in this area is near impossible

[Loz]

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Below is an extract from today's "Grauniad" comment page:

>

> "... there are 30m-40m actual or potential bedrooms nationwide not slept in every night ...

> The tiny fraction of these found in council housing are being aggressively pursued through the

> bedroom tax; public policy takes no responsibility - and shows no interest - in what happens with the

> rest".

>

> I couldn't have put it better myself.

Why? What I do with my spare bedroom is my business and the taxpayer is not paying me for it. In fact, I arguably pay extra council tax because of it.

[Loz]

Blackcurrant Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > No, no, no. The problem with this is that assets (generally) have intrinsically no value. How much

> > is a picture worth? How much is a car worth? How much is 10000 shares in a company worth? How much

> > is a house worth? The answer to all of those is nothing... until the point they are sold. Only

> > then can the value be understood.

>

> This clearly isn't true. I can look up share prices from one second to the next and if I sell

> shares, I will get the current price. The value of houses is easy to determine to within 5% of the

> actual sale price.

But that 'value' is irrelevant until, as I said, you actually sell it and realise that price. Until then it has no value. As Northern Rock shareholders found - they could have been taxed on the 'value' of their shares only to discover they actually were worthless.

[Blackcurrant]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Blackcurrant Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Loz Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > No, no, no. The problem with this is that

> assets (generally) have intrinsically no value.

> How much

> > > is a picture worth? How much is a car worth?

> How much is 10000 shares in a company worth? How

> much

> > > is a house worth? The answer to all of those

> is nothing... until the point they are sold.

> Only

> > > then can the value be understood.

> >

> > This clearly isn't true. I can look up share

> prices from one second to the next and if I sell

> > shares, I will get the current price. The value

> of houses is easy to determine to within 5% of

> the

> > actual sale price.

>

> But that 'value' is irrelevant until, as I said,

> you actually sell it and realise that price. Until

> then it has no value. As Northern Rock

> shareholders found - they could have been taxed on

> the 'value' of their shares only to discover they

> actually were worthless.

So if I have ?20 in my pocket, it's actually worthless until I spend it and realise it's true value, because who's to say there won't be a plunge in the value of sterling tomorrow.

[????]

PokerTime Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That's wny rent caps have to about limiting annual

> rates of increase, not put a ceiling on a one size

> fits all rent.

>

> ????, you keep banging on about leftism! What are

> you talking about? This has been a very good,

> interesting and eloquent debate about some very

> real issues, with a variety of viewpoints (all

> valid) and a general consensus on the difficulties

> of finding workable solutions. All you seem to

> have contributed is some rage driven dismissal of

> any criticism of the market as leftist nonsense!

> Incredible....

Oh great, a self appointed Forum Sherriff, love them. I've posted plenty of comment on here just in my style. So, as you've bought the subject up...personally I find your wordy, naive, patronising, often confusing opinion with fact, and sometimes quite rude too hidden under a cloak of faux - reasonability posting style a right pain in the arse but it's a forum so I put up with it.....

[????]

Anyway 41 pages on the problem and its causes and no-one has even mentioned immigration.

Now to be absolutely crystal clear for one dimensional political thinkers, even though i hate the Guardian,I have no problem with immigration at all and am perfectly happy to live in a vibrant city that welcomes economic migrants from around the world and think it has been an enormous benefit to our city and country - we have a younger more dynamic population than most of our western european neighbours thanks to immigration. But the success of London and the UK in drawing in immigrants from Europe and farther afield has itself had significant impact on our transport, public services and, er, housing. I don't think that any govt is particularly at fault for not anticipating the significance of immigration.

[????]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Zebedee Tring Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Below is an extract from today's "Grauniad"

> comment page:

> >

> > "... there are 30m-40m actual or potential

> bedrooms nationwide not slept in every night ...

> > The tiny fraction of these found in council

> housing are being aggressively pursued through

> the

> > bedroom tax; public policy takes no

> responsibility - and shows no interest - in what

> happens with the

> > rest".

> >

> > I couldn't have put it better myself.

>

> Why? What I do with my spare bedroom is my

> business and the taxpayer is not paying me for it.

> In fact, I arguably pay extra council tax because

> of it.

Well said Loz. I was just going to go round and tell my 70 something couple neighbours to immediately leave their 3 bedroom house that they bought years ago and no doubt paid a lot of mortgage payments to the banks from their hard earned salary as a tailor and nurse, that they must open up their house to strangers as Owen Jones and his mates think they are greedy capitalist bastards.....and then your post bought me back to my senses.

[PokerTime]

Jesus, you seem to have a real issue with sensible debate ????, but the issue is all yours. You don't know anything about my level of experience on the subject or anything else. But continue to make yourself look a bit irrational by all means.

London has ALWAYS had immigration. Similarly most newcomers are internal migrants. And the overwhleming majority of migrants work and are a whopping third less likely to be on benefits than British nationals according to the DWPs own records. They are not the drain that the Daily Mail likes to protray them as. It's a red herring.

[numbers]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Ps What's got us into this mess is draconian

> planning laws (the state) and ironically, tory

> politicians trying to stoke pre-election booms

> (the state)..... not the market

was going to say (personal opinion, not saying these are hard facts) that I believe there are other, numerous, contributory factors relating to the current housing crisis in this country (as well as the policies that have been discussed):

- lack of land for planning (think DaveR alluded to this earlier in the thread)

- building regulations (I won't get political and say "thanks Labour")

- people changing the way they live (e.g. more and more of us living alone, families being split between more than one home, people living longer, blah blah blah)

- immigration

afraid I agree with quids pokertime, comments of a personal nature are not welcome on this thread and detract from any argument you are trying to make. I don't doubt your knowledge on the subject seeing as you say you are doing a study on it. You're not coming across as completely unbiased however and presenting opinion as fact, well maybe, I don't know enough myself.

I'm not a fan of people having second homes as I have seen this price people out of their local area, esp young families with local jobs (I am talking from years and years ago). I agree wtih penguins earlier post (except the bit about yummy mummies, why are mum's being singled out and I think that term is derogatory even if it wasn't intentionally so).

[StraferJack]

It's just become unpleasant now.

[numbers]

It became unpleasant a few pages ago really.

[PokerTime]

I have backed my opinions with facts...that's very different to stating opinion as fact. All the figures are out there and easily researched. What I take exception to is the kind of playground digs of ????. He's clearly not interested in having a sensible discussion to explore anything he thinks is not based in fact. For example, he described social housing developments as failing because he had a view that the poorly built/ designed estates of the 60s are typical of social housing. If he knew anything about the history of the subject he would know that's not true. I can't help it if anyone writes something that is demonstrably not true. That's not my problem. What I do know is that when people resort to insulting tones, it's because they are losing the debate and know it.

[????]

PokerTime Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jesus, you seem to have a real issue with sensible

> debate ????, but the issue is all yours. You don't

> know anything about my level of experience on the

> subject or anything else. But continue to make

> yourself look a bit irrational by all means.

>

> London has ALWAYS had immigration. Similarly most

> newcomers are internal migrants. And the

> overwhleming majority of migrants work and are a

> whopping third less likely to be on benefits than

> British nationals according to the DWPs own

> records. They are not the drain that the Daily

> Mail likes to protray them as. It's a red herring.

Did you read any of my post??? Where did i say any of that about migrants not working. Don't start banding stuff like that about daily mail etc willy nilly, I spelt out my support for immigration...so don't start that smearing crap and i really mean that.......

[StraferJack]

Not really no

[numbers]

PokerTime Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I have backed my opinions with facts...that's very

> different to stating opinion as fact. All the

> figures are out there and easily researched.

as if anyone reading is going to spend an evening checking your figures by doing their own research.

> I take exception to is the kind of playground digs

> of ????. He's clearly not interested in having a

> sensible discussion to explore anything he thinks

> is not based in fact.

If we're going to act like we're in the school playground then do let me point out 'you started it' a few pages ago when you queried whether he was angry, that was personal. quids' posting style is familiar to prolific posters on here, you've been a prolific poster, saying fooking is what he does.

That's not my problem. What I do know is

> that when people resort to insulting tones, it's

> because they are losing the debate and know it.

usually the people that come out with that line are the ones that are erm...I can hardly say 'losing' as there is nothing to lose here, its just a discussion on a forum. No-one 'wins'. Just loses interest and the will to live. I appreciate I am likely contributing to that.

[PokerTime]

A paragraph you started with a patrinising tone 'Now to be absolutely crystal clear for one dimensional political thinkers'.......It's ok to say I disagree and this is what I think. It's doesn't have to be embellished with digs and accusations of leftism, niaivity and whatever other label you want to put on someone with a different view. That just winds people up. I don't know what I did or said to offend originally but it's not my intent to offend anyone. I thought I was just participating in an interesting debate.

[PokerTime]

Numbers, I can't be expected to know that ????s or anybody writes in a particular way. It's a forum. I found his challenge to my view on lobbying dismissive and sarcastic (and that's what actually started it). And if I were sarcastic and dismissive of a post in that way (knowing that person knows nothing about me) I would expect to be called out on it. Surely there's not a clique here. It's a public forum. no? People have to take responsibility for the way in which they express themselves.

[????]

Bollox you didn't read my post properly and jumped to the Daily Mail smear because that's a pavlovian reaction from some if you mention the I word, that is also why I spelt it out in clear terms because certain people jump to conclusions ...as you did, which is precisely why i spelt it out, irony of ironies.

Go back and read my post on social housing BTW and see how that stands up to your version.

You are confusing open debate with a debate along the lines you want and then insulting those that don't go along with that....which is fairly typical

[Otta]

London may well have ALWAYS had immigration, but it's never been this full and had this kind of continuous influx. Talking sensibly about that doesn't make you a Daily Mail reading oaf PokerTime.

Quids and I don't always agree, but don't try to dismiss him as something he definitely isn't if you know the history of his posts.

[????]

By the way PokerTime as you went back I just went back to page 36 as I remembered our debate the other night, which I'd not looked at since

You start one post with "oh how wrong you are" or some equally patronising tosh

And then a few posts later

it's "it's a forum debate there is no right or wrong" or some similar inconsistent tosh

[PokerTime]

OK this is what you said ???? (and you have to go back before page 36 to find it).....

"you talk about quality social housing built before the 80s...you are having a laugh aren't you? much of it, especially from the 60s and 70s was cheap shite, often dangerous (Ronan Point anyone?) and largely a failure much of which is now or has now been knocked down with no-one mourning it.

Most of it was designed by middle-class tossers from their georgian homes, naturally. Always know what's best for the plebs statists/lefty middle class types...."

The tone of the post was one of ridicule, and not a tone that was in any way provoked. That majority of social housing built between the first blocks in 1890 (in London) and 1980 were not built in the 60's and 70's and most of it still stands. Both I and SJ I think corrected you.

Anyway I'm not getting drawn in a personal spat with anyone. I don't know anything about you and am sure your a decent person. So let's just agree to disagree and draw a line. I'm sure no-one else wants to read this stuff.

[StraferJack]

Otta

You sure london has never been so populated?

http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2013/07/17/london-population-set-to-break-historic-record-high/

[????]

That's fine by me but don't start getting personal again or EVER smear me with a hint of racism because you don't like my style - report it and get it banned (if Admin agrees) or your just have to live with it because this is a public forum

[Zebedee Tring]

Is it not possible for people on this MB to debate anything without resorting to personal insult (I don't include Poker Timer in this comment)? People are allowed to disagree but personal abuse is unnecessary and unseemly. It seems that because someone is anonymous, they think that they can say things online that they would never say face to face.

[????]

lol.....ZT you read any of this?

[Zebedee Tring]

Yes, I've read most or all of the thread. I can't see why this is a LOL matter.