SNP are lying b******s as well !

[Smartie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Ok, I see that this discussion is utterly pointless.

Stuck somewhere between the two of you age wise, I find this discussion absolutely fascinating.

I can understand both arguments. I have great sympathy for both the real and hypothetical parties here who are in a crap situation, it's really not good for our society that we've got here and I've got absolutely no idea what we do to fix it that is in any way morally / ethically correct.

[archie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

No, my complaint is that i'm somehow supposed to feel sorry for people who were able to take advantage of a situation that was far easier back in the day, just because circumstances have now changed and they may have to give something up for a change. I won't and never will feel sorry for people who are better off than me. Why would I? It's not as if I have their sympathy either.

It's not about feeling sorry. It's about basic principles. We live in a society where some people have more than others. That's why we have a progressive tax system. I don't support that because I feel sorry for people. I support it because it's right. But that doesn't mean I should support a garbled proposal to increase tax on people with little reference to ability to pay.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's not about feeling sorry. It's about basic principles. We live in a society where some people have more than others. That's why we have a progressive tax system. I don't support that because I feel sorry for people. I support it because it's right. But that doesn't mean I should support a garbled proposal to increase tax on people with little reference to ability to pay.

That's fair enough. I guess from my perspective, people shouldn't own assets with value in excess to what they're able to cover during economic downturns. But then again, I've never been fortunate enough to be in that position in the first place.

[Santa Cruz]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That's fair enough. I guess from my perspective, people shouldn't own assets with value in excess to what they're able to cover during economic downturns. But then again, I've never been fortunate enough to be in that position in the first place.

It's not just a case of cut your cloth to protect against any unforseen economic downturn though, people's circumstances can change instantly due to health problems, bereavement, divorce or any number of reasons mainly outwith their control.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's not just a case of cut your cloth to protect against any unforseen economic downturn though, people's circumstances can change instantly due to health problems, bereavement, divorce or any number of reasons mainly outwith their control.

True. But this applies to everyone. Including those not fortunate enough to even own their own homes.

[Smartie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That's fair enough. I guess from my perspective, people shouldn't own assets with value in excess to what they're able to cover during economic downturns. But then again, I've never been fortunate enough to be in that position in the first place.

It's also worth considering the commodity that is "time".

You've got it on your side. And whilst I know nothing about your personal circumstances, I find it really bleak that we should have people giving up on owning their home, if that's something they want to do.

Those who are older may have material possessions and money but they've made decisions over a lifetime to amass that. Ok, they've got "stuff" but they lack the time to add to it and have different levels of flexibility to adapt.

I've reached a few crossroads in my life and the one thing I've always wished I'd had more of was time. I'd much prefer to be poor, young and angry than to be old, relatively comfortable but threatened, because there'd be time to do something about it.

To be quite honest, I lie somewhere between the two right now.

[Kato]

Wrong thread

[TrumpIsAPeado]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's also worth considering the commodity that is "time".

You've got it on your side. And whilst I know nothing about your personal circumstances, I find it really bleak that we should have people giving up on owning their home, if that's something they want to do.

Those who are older may have material possessions and money but they've made decisions over a lifetime to amass that. Ok, they've got "stuff" but they lack the time to add to it and have different levels of flexibility to adapt.

I've reached a few crossroads in my life and the one thing I've always wished I'd had more of was time. I'd much prefer to be poor, young and angry than to be old, relatively comfortable but threatened, because there'd be time to do something about it.

To be quite honest, I lie somewhere between the two right now.

I pretty much gave up on the prospect of owning my own home following the 2008 crash. It's only become increasingly more unlikely since then. Although economic factors have played a huge impact, I accept that my own personal circumstances and limitations certainly haven't helped matters either.

The thought of getting old terrifies me. Not because i'm against ageing gracefully, but because I don't see a pension or a home or any real quality of life 30 odd years down the line, assuming I even make it that far.

[Santa Cruz]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

True. But this applies to everyone. Including those not fortunate enough to even own their own homes.

I know it's hard but maybe worth bearing in mind there's pros and cons to home ownership. I found it less of a financial responsibility when I rented as a social tenant than I do as a home owner. I sometimes wonder what the point is, most of us will never see any of the money we've paid to buy our homes because we'll always need somewhere to live. I'm not going to patronise you by offering advice on looking at your circumstances differently, I'll just wish you well and hope that you get a turn of fortune in the future.

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Just build a lot more ****ing homes. We've been stuck in this political dereliction of duty for years now across Scottish national and local government. We can't have Nimbyism run rife just because MPs, MSPs and Councillors don't want anything upsetting to voters anywhere near their patch and at the same time expect to achieve the massive number of additional houses we need to build across all tenures - owner occupied, affordable rented and private rented.

People need homes to buy and rent in vastly greater numbers than are available. They can't get them for two reasons: firstly they aren't available in large enough numbers and secondly they are unaffordable to large chunks of the population. These two factors are directly related, low supply equals much higher purchase and rental costs.

This is a virtuous economic circle if our politicians would just develop some ****ing spines. House building development at scale creates jobs and homes and tax income, they lower market costs for the consumers across all tenures, promote choice, accelerate supply of climate compliant homes and stimulate wider economic activity. But no, lets carry on with the ****ty pretendy politics of big talk and **** all delivery.

I agree with that 100%.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Stuck somewhere between the two of you age wise, I find this discussion absolutely fascinating.

I can understand both arguments. I have great sympathy for both the real and hypothetical parties here who are in a crap situation, it's really not good for our society that we've got here and I've got absolutely no idea what we do to fix it that is in any way morally / ethically correct.

Build houses. Lots of them. You free up the planning system so that it’s easier and cheaper to get permission. Especially for small scale developments. There should be a presumption in favour. Over the last 30 years we have killed of small scale house builders by making it impossible for them to get land and planning permission. The result is less housing and less diverse housing. It’s stifling the economy. Nowadays the banks only lend for property. And if you want to borrow for small business it has to be backed up by property.
If you want growth in Scotland then that’s a great way to start.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Smartie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Build houses. Lots of them. You free up the planning system so that it’s easier and cheaper to get permission. Especially for small scale developments. There should be a presumption in favour. Over the last 30 years we have killed of small scale house builders by making it impossible for them to get land and planning permission. The result is less housing and less diverse housing. It’s stifling the economy. Nowadays the banks only lend for property. And if you want to borrow for small business it has to be backed up by property.
If you want growth in Scotland then that’s a great way to start.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why isn't it happening (genuine question)?

What's the downside?

[Paul1642]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

No, my complaint is that i'm somehow supposed to feel sorry for people who were able to take advantage of a situation that was far easier back in the day, just because circumstances have now changed and they may have to give something up for a change. I won't and never will feel sorry for people who are better off than me. Why would I? It's not as if I have their sympathy either.

You just come across as being extremely bitter at having not managed to own your own home and have some weird illusion that those who do own theirs had it handed to them. Most people worked hard to own theirs and and had nothing handed to them.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Why isn't it happening (genuine question)?

What's the downside?

Because freeing up land in order to build more houses comes with it's own costs. Such as less agriculture, higher levels of congestion and the expense of expanding infrastructure such as roads, drain pipes, telephones lines... etc

I agree that there needs to be greater housing availability and affordability. But it's not as simple as just building more houses. It requires extensive planning and costing that go beyond just the house itself.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You just come across as being extremely bitter at having not managed to own your own home and have some weird illusion that those who do own theirs had it handed to them. Most people worked hard to own theirs and and had nothing handed to them.

Ok boomer

I've never owned my own home to have the opportunity of managing it. I must not be working hard enough in my minimum wage jobs. I'm sure if I just work harder my generous employers who aren't looking at the profit margins will happily hike up my wages.

Oh wait, no. It's not the 60s.

[Kato]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Why isn't it happening (genuine question)?

What's the downside?

Vested interests. Existing house prices go down.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Because freeing up land in order to build more houses comes with it's own costs. Such as less agriculture, higher levels of congestion and the expense of expanding infrastructure such as roads, drain pipes, telephones lines... etc

I agree that there needs to be greater housing availability and affordability. But it's not as simple as just building more houses. It requires extensive planning and costing that go beyond just the house itself.

The costs can be covered by the value in the new house. It’s the permissions that’s the problem. And the govt needs to be doing a lot of it themselves so that the benefit doesn’t all go to the private sector.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kato]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You just come across as being extremely bitter at having not managed to own your own home and have some weird illusion that those who do own theirs had it handed to them. Most people worked hard to own theirs and and had nothing handed to them.

Not picking up bitterness at all. Just bluntness at a system stacked against the youth.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

The other option is do nothing and watch our schools collapse. Band a and b frozen band c,d and e bellow most other rises in Scotland. Yes their will be a tiny proportion of people with huge assets but no wage or pension to absorb the rise. Ho hum the best of a bad choice

[McD]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Ok boomer

I've never owned my own home to have the opportunity of managing it. I must not be working hard enough in my minimum wage jobs. I'm sure if I just work harder my generous employers who aren't looking at the profit margins will happily hike up my wages.

Oh wait, no. It's not the 60s.

Not a single person on this thread, has said or implied that anyone needs to simply work harder or get higher wages, but you are lashing out and denigrating anyone who owns their home. There will be a proportion of people who have been born into reasonable wealth, and that has led them to be able to own a home in adulthood.

but the vast majority of people who own their home are working class people who don’t have huge pensions, don’t have tonnes of disposable income, they’re just getting by as best they can. The conditions that you rightly rail against are not controlled or caused by these people. You’re directing your ire at them, who simply lived in the times they were born into. If you once had ambitions of home ownership, that makes you exactly the same as all of them, that’s what they had. It’s rather hypocritical to say you wanted to buy a home, but sod that lot because they were born earlier than you, and to actively want them to be taxed out of their homes is just bitter and spiteful.

[archie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The other option is do nothing and watch our schools collapse. Band a and b frozen band c,d and e bellow most other rises in Scotland. Yes their will be a tiny proportion of people with huge assets but no wage or pension to absorb the rise. Ho hum the best of a bad choice

Ho hum!

[TrumpIsAPeado]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The costs can be covered by the value in the new house. It’s the permissions that’s the problem. And the govt needs to be doing a lot of it themselves so that the benefit doesn’t all go to the private sector.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But we're not just talking about more housing here, we're talking about affordable housing. When you start tying the additional costs into the mortgage of the house itself, prices can go up significantly, pricing people out. Permission is just one complication of many.

[Smartie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Not picking up bitterness at all. Just bluntness at a system stacked against the youth.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

And a system stacked against the youth is in nobody's interests.

[Paul1642]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Ok boomer

I've never owned my own home to have the opportunity of managing it. I must not be working hard enough in my minimum wage jobs. I'm sure if I just work harder my generous employers who aren't looking at the profit margins will happily hike up my wages.

Oh wait, no. It's not the 60s.

“Ok boomer”

Far from it. Suspect I’m younger than you.

[Kato]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

And a system stacked against the youth is in nobody's interests.

A system stacked against anyone is in no one's interests.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[danhibees1875]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

“Ok boomer”

Far from it. Suspect I’m younger than you.

Not if you were born in 1642 as your name suggests, back when you'd buy a house for the price of a freddo.

[Kato]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Not if you were born in 1642 as your name suggests, back when you'd buy a house for the price of a freddo.

A hovel for the price of an otters' nose you mean.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[TrumpIsAPeado]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Not a single person on this thread, has said or implied that anyone needs to simply work harder or get higher wages, but you are lashing out and denigrating anyone who owns their home. There will be a proportion of people who have been born into reasonable wealth, and that has led them to be able to own a home in adulthood.

but the vast majority of people who own their home are working class people who don’t have huge pensions, don’t have tonnes of disposable income, they’re just getting by as best they can. The conditions that you rightly rail against are not controlled or caused by these people. You’re directing your ire at them, who simply lived in the times they were born into. If you once had ambitions of home ownership, that makes you exactly the same as all of them, that’s what they had. It’s rather hypocritical to say you wanted to buy a home, but sod that lot because they were born earlier than you, and to actively want them to be taxed out of their homes is just bitter and spiteful.

You're making out that I take issue with anybody who owns a home, which simply isn't the case. I just have no sympathy for people who are relatively high up on the housing ladder who are hard up for cash, while sitting on an asset more valuable than many people can ever dream of having.

They may have no control over the conditions, but they were happy to take advantage of those conditions when it was working in their favour.

[One Day Soon]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You're making out that I take issue with anybody who owns a home, which simply isn't the case. I just have no sympathy for people who are relatively high up on the housing ladder who are hard up for cash, while sitting on an asset more valuable than many people can ever dream of having.

They may have no control over the conditions, but they were happy to take advantage of those conditions when it was working in their favour.

In order to earn your favour now what should these people have done to not take advantage of those conditions when it was working in their favour?

[Stairway 2 7]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Ho hum!

It's easy to criticise without giving a better solution. But if council tax is staying, what would you do as a council if you are facing massive cuts and the only way to get money is council tax increases.