How many rooms does George Monbiot have?

[Spiritual_Beggar]

Ozzie Osmond said:

The risk is that sooner or later the "have-nots" will simply vote to "have". Those who currently "have" need to be awake, paying attention and working out how to avoid that situation.

That is 'exactly' the situation Labour were trying to engineer during their time in power.


Fact of the matter is; if the country gets to that state...the wealthy really WILL leave the country......and then we'll see Britain slide down in standard very very quickly.

[turbobloke]

Spiritual_Beggar said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

The risk is that sooner or later the "have-nots" will simply vote to "have". Those who currently "have" need to be awake, paying attention and working out how to avoid that situation.

That is 'exactly' the situation Labour were trying to engineer during their time in power.


Fact of the matter is; if the country gets to that state...the wealthy really WILL leave the country......and then we'll see Britain slide down in standard very very quickly.

A similar thought occurred to me, the process described by Ozzie couldn't materialise overnight and within this generalisation those that 'have' are mobile whereas the rest are not. While the ties of family, friends and businesses would normally put the brakes on a major up-sticks, the prospect of losing everything would put the pedal to the metal.

The rest isn't difficult to figure out.

Edited by turbobloke on Tuesday 4th January 15:31

[Fittster]

thinfourth2 said:

Deva Link said:

I meant "ideally" for the younger people who are trying to find and buy family homes.

I'm sure as people got older they would move into these places *if* they were in their current neighbourhood *and* the right sort of space and facilities were available. I was reading about one in Birmingham recently and it was massively over-subscribed.

The problem is

Small house = st area

Not always, for example look at historic alms houses

Build quality small properties and they may well be an asset for hundreds of years.

[Fittster]

fido said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

• Almost all of the wealth is concentrated in 5% of the population.

Amazing isn't it after 13 years of New Labour?! My problem isn't with taxes on the rich (someone with the £50m house in the example above) - it's taxes on the normal city dweller who lives in a £500k property with an 'extra' room who cannot rely on writing commie bullsh8t for the Guardian to make ends meet, because that's who these envy taxes inevitably end up r8ping.

500K isn't normal.

[ShadownINja]

grumbledoak said:

ShadownINja said:

I know what book you've been reading.

Robert T. Kiyosaki would be my guess.

Everyone should be made to read that at school.

It certainly made me think. His follow-up book wasn't so great as it just talked about running a business IIRC. Buy low, tell everyone, sell high, retire give or take a few steps.

[otolith]

grumbledoak said:

some sort of bat Polly Toynbee

Edited for greater specificity?

[thinfourth2]

Fittster said:

thinfourth2 said:

Deva Link said:

I meant "ideally" for the younger people who are trying to find and buy family homes.

I'm sure as people got older they would move into these places *if* they were in their current neighbourhood *and* the right sort of space and facilities were available. I was reading about one in Birmingham recently and it was massively over-subscribed.

The problem is

Small house = st area

Not always, for example look at historic alms houses

Build quality small properties and they may well be an asset for hundreds of years.

But sadly we are building nasty little boxes with a design life of 20 years

P.s. Not all small houses are in a st area i know this as we as a family owned the house with the narrowest frontage <BIG PAUSE> in the world. Just most are in st areas

[ukwill]

otolith said:

grumbledoak said:

some sort of bat Polly Toynbee

Edited for greater specificity?

Please. Seeing that name on here once was more than enough.

[rah1888]

Fittster said:

fido said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

• Almost all of the wealth is concentrated in 5% of the population.

Amazing isn't it after 13 years of New Labour?! My problem isn't with taxes on the rich (someone with the £50m house in the example above) - it's taxes on the normal city dweller who lives in a £500k property with an 'extra' room who cannot rely on writing commie bullsh8t for the Guardian to make ends meet, because that's who these envy taxes inevitably end up r8ping.

500K isn't normal.

Depends where you are I suppose.

You'd do well to find a half decent 3 bed semi for less than £500k round here.

[Parrot of Doom]

Moonbat seems not to understand the single person's council tax discount. I live alone, and see no reason why I should pay anywhere near what my neighbour (with 4 people in the exact same design of house) pays. I use a tiny fraction of the council services she receives, so bks to paying any more than I already do.

[grumbledoak]

ShadownINja said:

It certainly made me think. His follow-up book wasn't so great as it just talked about running a business IIRC. Buy low, tell everyone, sell high, retire give or take a few steps.

He's got four, now. I have all of them. The first one says it best, though there is some interesting stuff in all of them.

[Busa_Rush]

Spiritual_Beggar said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

The risk is that sooner or later the "have-nots" will simply vote to "have". Those who currently "have" need to be awake, paying attention and working out how to avoid that situation.

That is 'exactly' the situation Labour were trying to engineer during their time in power.


Fact of the matter is; if the country gets to that state...the wealthy really WILL leave the country......and then we'll see Britain slide down in standard very very quickly.

There was a woman interviewed (I use that word with reservation, it was more of an extraction of a sound bite) on Radio 4 this evening . . . she complained that the Govt put VAT up but they (MP's or Tory/LibDem Cabinet) still went on a nice Christmas holiday themselves . . . then asked how they think people on benefits should manage with the VAT rise.

Why do so many people seemingly harbor such a bitter attitude ? They'll never get on if they keep harping back to some old prejudice . . .

[Spiritual_Beggar]

Busa_Rush said:

That's the biggest problem with our Party politcal system at the moment.

Neither is doing what's 'best for the country'. Both (come on....it's not like the Libs will survive much longer) keep trying to get one up on the other at the cost of soundbite politcs...but no real benfit to the country.

It makes me think that;

stick a bunch of kids in charge, like that CH4 program (i think it was CH4) did with that office or town (you know the one), and we'd be no worse off!

[Zod]

ShadownINja said:

We already pay a tax based on its value when we buy a house...

A fking huge tax (out of already taxed income)if it's a big house.

[groucho]

Pesty said:

Is monbiot the newspaper writers version of a Troll?

he only ever writes 'controversial' bkss and seems to do it for the sake of it.

Does he run it by the editor? I suppose so. The mind boggles, it really fking does!!!!!

Only the most ardent of lefties would accept somebody imposed on them, in their house, and accept it.

[Lost_BMW]

12gauge said:

ShadownINja said:

12gauge said:

ShadownINja said:

We already pay a tax based on its value when we buy a house...

Whats your point?

If i choose not to be a homeowner and store my wealth somewhere else (stocks, savings) I pay either income tax on the savings (20 or 40%), or CGT. When you come to sell your house, you pay no such tax.

I don't think you can compare a home (somewhere to live) with a piece of paper stating you own part of a company.

Why not?

If i have my life savings in cash or stocks, why shouldnt i get the same tax benefits that a homeowner, whose life savings are his house, would?

Your views seems to suggest anyone that doesnt own a home should be treated as a second class citizen.

You are. You have no stable long term relationship with or loyalty to the country, You shouldn't be allowed to vote either.

'You' assumes that you describe your choice/circumstances rather than a hypothetical; if so substitute 'they'.









Stirs pot and retires to watch the outrage unfold. HTH!

[Lost_BMW]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Before dismissing all this stuff too swiftly it's worth bearing in mind

• Almost all of the wealth is concentrated in 5% of the population.
• A 40% vote in favour of any party promoting nationalisation of property (with or without compensation) would almost certainly be enough to get the job done.

The risk is that sooner or later the "have-nots" will simply vote to "have". Those who currently "have" need to be awake, paying attention and working out how to avoid that situation.

AKA 'cull'.