Stars

And so the cycle of damaging property based parasitism continues - that's his point

This is not what has happened historically with or without government assurance

If only the parasites would push off somewhere else , unfortunately the uk tax system is ideal (made for) for parasites, so they stay while the producers move out

Yes, I can confidently say most of the people in the uk would prefer control / ownership of the enviroment in which they live. You only have to observe people's behaviour to understand this So now the fault is with people rather than the system? - I see Dissatifaction with living in another person's house is very far from restricted to the uk You said the restrictions don't matter to you. If someone loses their job, their landlord will not put you up for free (HB excepted) You are trivialising what many people know and recognise to be non-trvial problems. Do you think other posters to this thread have only ever visted the uk briefly and so have no first hand experience of its rental market? For most, it's not as big a PITA as living long term in rented accomodation I know nothing of your situation, but i do know if you decide to stop renting it will be because owning is better for you.

Yes, i agree Uk managment seems to have large self worth issues. I think this is pretty deeply embedded in our culture, though Since then the rent line has moved to accomodate the utility of more widespread car ownership; if you don't have a car you may find yourself unable to make this line.

It is still the case that for the vast majority of employment in the uk, you need to turn up at a particular place, at a particular time every day

That's because it took a larger amount of resources to ceate a car in the seventies (the insurance cost is just a risk and remains more or less constant) Now, because everyone has a car, you are unlikely to make rent reliably unless you also have one.

Unfortunately, from what we know about the way the price of land works, this isn't true. Liberalising the planning system would certainly be better for many and it would shift prices around a lot, but it would not have the dramatic price reducing effect you imply

No I take this position - We have a serious problem; we need to face up to it rather than distorting reality so it looks nice

I'm confused now; are you asking for examples of real productivity? The cars are an example of real production. They might feel better off because they believe they have a claim on future production. But that's a seperate issue to the actual production taking place

Well put We are not adjusting 'back' to reasoned and fair economy. We have a situation in which the thieves have tried to steal more than there is which will at some point will need to adjust so that the thieves go back to stealing things that do exist (business as usual) The problem with this analysis is that it has a time limit - at this moment, renting is better. However, our requirement to be somewhere is long term and can't be got rid of. I don't disagree entirely with the statement, renting is better than deciding to buy now, but it is a limited and incomplete. I'd like to believe that those renting now and in the future will avoid the real estate caused unpleasantness which i feel is coming down the pipe, however, in reality i think they will probably catch the worst of it.

Some people want to live in a way / environment decided by themselves, rather than having to consult someone else. Most people want this quite a lot. There are reams of threads on this site in which people complain bitterly about the restrictions and loss of control inherent in renting. I started by saying renting is restrictive and here you agree but say it doesn't bother you - ok - two separate issues there Yes, i realise this however when renting you have two such individuals (your employer and your landlord) Another thing people have complained about a lot in threads on this site is the great difficulty in getting an arrangment that is vagualy acceptable. For most people this is not a giant issue: for instance, most of the south east is within commuting range of most of the rest of it If renting offers nothing but advantages, this decision would make no sense

An example - in the fifties and sixties it was somewhat special to have a car; now nearly everyone has one

While much of this may well be true, it is very far from making renting a better bet than owning. Remember that if renting you must actively chase a mere slice between rent and productivity; you *may* get a slice of what the landlord there would usually gain; but if you own you will almost certainly catch the productivity (up or down) of an area. The key fact here is that overall (in the long term) production is going up rather than down and has been for quite a while

The future rent appears in price, sure, but the future price can't. You can't pay for the future price in the present price Yes - agreed

Of course the interest comes to an end, allowing you yourself to make a net charge (get the money back). The rent doesn't

Of course, buying can go spectacularly wrong for some and a buyer can end up losing money in the short term. However, barring civilisation collapsing a buyer that doesn't lose the property is relatively unlikely to lose as much money as he would, as a matter of certainty, by renting the same property. For many buyers the long term effective price of buying ends up being significantly less than zero - they are actually paid to have accommodation. Now we come to the fact that the relatively expensive (in the long term) way to provide yourself with accommodation offers significantly less personal liberty than a way that often has a price less than zero. ..oh dear

It's a team effort The labour party will leave debt for our children and the convsertives will make damn sure the 'right' children end up paying it back

You are more restricted by being a renter. You must consult a second party in rather minor personal choices, for instance the choice to smoke, keep a pet, choose a decor or more fundamentally, to stay in the same place As a renter, if the landlord suddenly decides he is bored of landlordery, or merely doesn't like you anymore, your personal affairs can be turned upside down without even losing your job.

You What else could i be implying...weather, traffic?

So 'flexible' that when renting, that at least 50% of the decision power an owner possesses, belong to someone else Meaning, to keep up with an owner, you have to become an 'investment genius' rather than, like them, just doing whatever you want

Yes, the restriction. You feeling ok?

That's substantially incorrect in my opinion The above is true in a market in replaceable production, but real estate is to a large degree not a market in production it is a market in monopoly. It is the monoply component which is creating the price problem, not the production component. Even if we could build houses for nothing and the maintenance cost were zero, it is unlikely prices would drop at all as a result; the advantage would just transfer into land price.

I think many are trying to convince themselves that : A) Somehow they will be rewarded for the discomfort and restriction they are experiencing B ) Somehow the system will balance out into a kind of fairness; a belief in a kind of real estate karma I have to say, It completely baffles me

I haven't read the proposal in detail, but it sounds like it will effectively provide funds to purchase land - in which case it will almost certainly act to raise prices.