Cyclone Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 I'm yet to see any of your evidence that argues against the 'inverse farm size and yield relationship'. And one example would not be sufficient, no. I've already said that I don't have any. Try to keep up. We do have plenty of examples of being able to work without owning or renting land though. It's no good being silly and trying to change this into an argument about farming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 http://homepage.ntlworld.com/janusg/chrchl.htm Have you read Chruchill's thoughts? I clearly don't have as much free time on my hands as you do to find things to read. By all means provide me with a 100 word precis on that article, and I'll read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 I bitterly resent Paxman's assertion that we are the most selfish generation ever. We simply got on with life, worked hard, paid our taxes, raised families and tried to be decent citizens like everybody else. It's yet another attempt to shift the blame for the current miserable state of affairs away from the politicians who have proved woefully innept for the past 50 years, onto yet another group of scapegoats who don't deserve it. Instead, Mr. Paxman might like to ask who caused the current financial crisis? Why did banks see fit to lend money to the subprime market? Which politician decided that PFI was a good idea? Who decided that we could afford to bail out the banks and fund the Olympics and pay super-salaries to the top earners, but couldn't afford to fund decent University education, (and who decided it was a good idea to get 50% of school leavers to University anyway?) The list of incompetance goes on and on... Paxman says 'The Boomers flogged public assets and frittered away the bounty provided by North Sea oil' and 'Boomers have been guilty of a monumental failure to protect the interests of future generations...' Well pardon me, but the Government tend not to listen to anything I say, to the point where I doubt we even live in a democracy any more, so let's change the word 'boomers' for 'government' and you might just be nearer the mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Aye, I have. There are a couple of one bedroomed flats advertised in First Come First Served this week with no age banding! Arches housing around £60 a week if anyone is interested. http://www.sheffieldpropertyshop.org.uk/fcfsprop.asp?ID=A52A4ABFA2324A128068ACB4E6569ED7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 I think the directon and shallowness of many replies are testimony to peoples selfishness.There is a shortage of social housing as a consequence of a Tory bribe which allowed tenants to buy at a discount,leaving a black hole in housing provision.People are very well-off on the whole and few have had to make meaningful sacrifice as others have done in war and at the work-place.I certainly believe todays people would be incapable of withstanding hardship,and this sis evident whenever the weather turns cold or a petrol shortage is imminent.I do not think the people are at fault but society and and the economy have induced torpor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 I bitterly resent Paxman's assertion that we are the most selfish generation ever. We simply got on with life, worked hard, paid our taxes, raised families and tried to be decent citizens like everybody else. It's yet another attempt to shift the blame for the current miserable state of affairs away from the politicians who have proved woefully innept for the past 50 years, onto yet another group of scapegoats who don't deserve it. Instead, Mr. Paxman might like to ask who caused the current financial crisis? Why did banks see fit to lend money to the subprime market? Which politician decided that PFI was a good idea? Who decided that we could afford to bail out the banks and fund the Olympics and pay super-salaries to the top earners, but couldn't afford to fund decent University education, (and who decided it was a good idea to get 50% of school leavers to University anyway?) The list of incompetance goes on and on... Paxman says 'The Boomers flogged public assets and frittered away the bounty provided by North Sea oil' and 'Boomers have been guilty of a monumental failure to protect the interests of future generations...' Well pardon me, but the Government tend not to listen to anything I say, to the point where I doubt we even live in a democracy any more, so let's change the word 'boomers' for 'government' and you might just be nearer the mark. We have simply......................etc.You have exercised aseries of choices for which you must assume some responsibilty.You cannot simply blame governments as you can exert pressure as a citizen,albeit in a limited way.You have bought into a society and may have enjoyed some benefits,but what about those born into a less provident set of circumstances?Have you sought to help them at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 I think the directon and shallowness of many replies are testimony to peoples selfishness.There is a shortage of social housing as a consequence of a Tory bribe which allowed tenants to buy at a discount,leaving a black hole in housing provision.People are very well-off on the whole and few have had to make meaningful sacrifice as others have done in war and at the work-place.I certainly believe todays people would be incapable of withstanding hardship,and this sis evident whenever the weather turns cold or a petrol shortage is imminent.I do not think the people are at fault but society and and the economy have induced torpor. How does someone living in a house and paying rent and then buying the house leave a black hole in housing provision? There still just one house and one person living in it, if they didn’t buy it they would still be living in it. The shortage is cause by building fewer houses than the expanding population needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted November 1, 2011 Author Share Posted November 1, 2011 How does someone living in a house and paying rent and then buying the house leave a black hole in housing provision? There still just one house and one person living in it, if they didn’t buy it they would still be living in it. The shortage is cause by building fewer houses than the expanding population needs. In the past 15 years, over 1.2 million buy to let mortgages have been taken out. Debt was used to purchase houses that had already been built and paid for. That debt could have been used to finance the building of much needed new housing. But buy to let mortgages have tax advantages, and building housing requires planning permission, time and productive work on the behalf of real men, whom must be paid for their labour. We actively discouraged the building of homes and unsustainable debt which has ultimately been forced upon the taxpayer. We have minimum rents due to housing benefit, and directly subsidise these landlords whom do nothing productive, they harm wider society. And implied yields set a minimum price for housing. It's nothing short of a national scandal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 How does someone living in a house and paying rent and then buying the house leave a black hole in housing provision? There still just one house and one person living in it, if they didn’t buy it they would still be living in it. The shortage is cause by building fewer houses than the expanding population needs. They(or their relatives) then sell the property on the free market and the price exceeds what many people can afford thereby excluding them.The funds gained from the initial sale were mot reinvested in a replacement.This HAS been portrayed in numerous documentaries and current affairs programmes which you clearly did not watch.Numerous ex-councoil properties are owned by private landlords who let to the highest bidder and not the most needy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Mr Paxman may well be one of the most selfish, but I'd argue that many of my generation just carried on trying to be decent people, like our parents, many of whom had lived through two world wars. My OH and I feel fortunate that we ended up with our own house (not the one we dreamed of in our younger days though!)which is more than our parents had. As well as the very rich (of whom I know little) there were ordinary people of our generation who had very comfortable lives. Anyone who'd joined a nationalised industry as a teenager and worked there for 40 years could retire early on a generous pension. Others who lived in some of the best council houses bought them for a song. Those benefits won't be seen again in the same way. Ken Loach's 'Kathy Come Home' film raised our social conscience a bit and many families who hadn't been able to get council housing previously got more help. But they didn't extend to everyone and most of us just worked hard, tried to bring up our families as best we could and put something away for a rainy day. Now in retirement, which can be a bit of a rainy day we ordinary baby boomers are being penalised. Those of us who were encouraged to, and subsequently did, pay into a pension to give us a little bit extra in our declining years, have seen the value of the state pension decrease - especially with the introduction of Pension Credit. I'm not talking here about people with 2/3 of final salaries and large tax bills, I'm talking of people who even with their 'bit extra' are still under the tax thresholds. Of course with hindsight we realise if we hadn't bothered, the state would be taking care of us and we'd be little worse off. I was at a pensioners' convention last week, and the majority felt the same. No wonder so many people don't save for retirement nowadays - they've seen what has happened to those of us that put our faith in having a reasonable state pension. So no, I may be part of what is considered the most selfish generation, but my family weren't active participants in the selfishness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.