pjw

There shouldn't be any protected trees - the issue should just be one of criminal damage of a neighbour's property

See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/10114111/Letting-agent-fees-out-of-control.html It's amazing how the government refuse to do anything - the comments by this minister show they will do nothing. If a letting agent is contracted to a landlord, they should be charging fees to the landlord, not to both sides. Maybe it would amount to the same thing in the end - as they might have to increase fees to landlords, who might put up rents, but we need to get rid of the culture in this country of "fees for nothing".

You see - even a terraced house can be "detached" - detached from reality in terms of the asking price. So we're all living in detached houses!

They wouldn't just raise the tax on oligarchs unfortunately: Council Tax is a licence for fraudsters in the council to print money for themselves and their means tests would be drawn in such a way as to give themselves the maximum pay rises, pensions and perks.

Reading a fantasy in the Daily Mail of what would have happened if we had joined the euro (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2338589/Ed-Balls-No-10-House-prices-halved-The-worst-riots-century-DOMINIC-SANDBROOK-images--What-HAD-joined-euro.html) - I realised that we could have had our HPC - if we had joined the euro. The eurozone governments have few instruments with which to prop up house prices, whereas we can print into oblivion... I don't support the EU or the euro, but we have ended up with an HPI obsessed government by staying out...

Well, personally, I think income tax should be cut, and central government should not give money to local authorities - but the council tax should be replaced by A LAND VALUE TAX. A tax on the value of the unimproved land - falling on freeholders, not all residents - as they are the ones who passively garner the increase in land values that come from social activity and economic growth.

Well, at a time when everyone is having the council tax more or less frozen, I can envisage people who live alone getting a swingeing 30% increase. As far as I am concerned, the council tax is just a con anyway - forcing people who don't have pensions in place, other than the state retirement pension of £100 a week, to fund the occupational pensions of the council workers. It is quite literally just fraud.

But second homes do not get a 50% discount. Councils have been allowed to reduce the second home discount to only 10%, and so most councils have done that. There may be the odd council here and there that still gives a 50% discount.

The depressing thing is that the only people who would live there would be immigrants who will stick it out for a year or two earning what is in zlotys a lot of money before going back to Poland - no English person or person of any origin who is permanently here is going to want to live in the shed for £700 a month. So how can an English person compete with this? It's like a race to the bottom. Can you imagine being on benefits living in that "cool pad"? I hate to think of the landlord getting £700 from the social for that. I couldn't imagine living in that shed full time. At least there'd be no bedroom tax, eh? Not exactly enough room to bring up 17 children, however. There's always a downside.

I was alarmed to read this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/council-spending/10045121/Town-halls-seek-to-levy-widows-tax.html

Unfortunately, the situation is even worse, Lulu, than you state. As council tax is only 16% of local government funding, the councils get the rest from the block grant, the uniform business rate, fees and charges etc. What this means is that emptying your bins is paid for dozens of times over by the block grant (which you pay for in your income tax) - and you get precisely nothing for your council tax.

I'm glad to hear the cuts are biting - I'm sick of funding you lot!

First of all, adjust for inflation, and then adjust for HOUSING COSTS - and you will find the bottom 10% are doing much worse than any previous decade of my life.

There shouldn't be an equality duty in a free society. In fact, equality-mongering is based on the idea that protected minorities are SUPERIOR. The best way of achieving equality is to sack the diversicrats and let people find their own level in society. So - no - there is no statutory duty to employ diversicrats.

Bloo Loo, I would vote for you! please stand for office!

Exactly - if they can't meet their statutory requirements while not cutting their own pay - the solution is obvious.

It's done up inside, but the house is still what it was - an older semi not worth the price.

Which means the whole game of working out whether a remortgage is "affordable" is just a con - if they decide the mortgage is not affordable according to their criteria, you still get to keep your product, but at a more expensive interest rate - if they were really worried about affordability, they would put you on the lowest interest rates...

Most women want to work to improve their family's finances - to see house prices simply rise up to reflect the fact women are working just moves the good life constantly out of reach. I would limit mortgages to three times a single salary, with no attention paid to a partner's income, so that the additional income provides a material uplift to the family standard of living. I basically don't want to see house prices on average higher than 3 times the average salary. I want them halved from where they are now.

Moneyweek have emailed round a PDF about the property boom this week - the link in their email is to http://click.fspeletters.com/t/BQ/AAGDkw/AAGSJQ/ABEGdA/1po/MzQ2NDQwfGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuZ2FsdmFuLmNvLnVrL2FjY291bnQvcmVnaXN0ZXIvTVcvSG91c2VQcmljZXNKdW5lMjAxMw./AQ/2ncx and it is entitled "are house prices set to rocket?"

As far as I can see, Cameron and Osborne don't expect to win the next election. Actually, they are just rich boys enjoying their time as leaders - but have no urgent programme they got elected for - and so it wouldn't really bother them if they didn't get elected. I suppose they could think along the lines: Gordon left us a problem - let's leave Ed Miliband an even bigger one, and stuff them up from day one!

Good article by Roger Bootle yesterday in Telegraph at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/rogerbootle/10094859/As-safe-as-houses-There-could-be-a-high-price-to-pay-for-creating-a-boom.html

You con WHOM? that would be in good English.

Well, because the authorities didn't want massive inflation back then - but now they think deflationary headwinds due to the global slump are sufficient to counteract the inflationary effect of using QE to keep interest rates down, or at least they are for now.

+1