Guest sibon Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Yes green belt is cheaper but then it makes brown belt development less attractive so the counter balance would be a hollowing out of our city centres. Depends how you do it. Subsidise brown field development, free up some land in the green belt. Allow councils to build houses again, for rental. Invest tax money into building apprenticeships. Pretty soon you'll have a virtuous circle of lower house prices and higher employment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 The motivation for it was to support the car industry and reduce emissions. Given that you already had to own a car to scrap one, it could lead to substantial savings in running costs. The reasoning behind it is the same as the decision to cut VAT to 15%. It's to get money flowing around the economy. I am aware of the reasons why Gordon Brown did it, but its more double taxation, criticised now, but not so much at the time. Do you think it worked and was a good idea, perhaps we should do it 24/7? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biotechpete Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Depends how you do it. Subsidise brown field development, free up some land in the green belt. Allow councils to build houses again, for rental. Invest tax money into building apprenticeships. Pretty soon you'll have a virtuous circle of lower house prices and higher employment. I'm not convinced by the council building argument. It strikes me that they would employ a private sector builder in any case so ultimately it's a route to inefficient building in places few people want to live. The rest sounds a lot like policy I have heard from (mainly lib dem) sections of government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 The rest sounds a lot like policy I have heard from (mainly lib dem) sections of government. In which case, they should get on and do it. They are the Government after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biotechpete Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 I am aware of the reasons why Gordon Brown did it, but its more double taxation, criticised now, but not so much at the time. Do you think it worked and was a good idea, perhaps we should do it 24/7? It obviously worked in as much as it boosted car sales. I'm not generally in favour of long term subsidy simply because it leads to inefficiency. It's a reasonable policy though in times of economic disaster to pull on economic levers. I do believe that this is a role of government rather than to stand by and do nothing. Neither do I advocate constant tweaking of the minutiae of policy as Brown did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 In which case, they should get on and do it. They are the Government after all. They are making the numbers up in government to give themselves an illusion of power. Dave gives them the odd titbit to keep them sweet but they haven't pushed much through have they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 It's a reasonable policy though in times of economic disaster to pull on economic levers. I do believe that this is a role of government rather than to stand by and do nothing. Neither do I advocate constant tweaking of the minutiae of policy as Brown did. So you think it worked, so it was right. What effect do you think this policy will have on house prices? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 They are making the numbers up in government to give themselves an illusion of power. Dave gives them the odd titbit to keep them sweet but they haven't pushed much through have they? Nothing has happened for about a year. Maybe they should all give their salaries and expenses back:) The stuff that I suggested above ought to gain cross party support. It is simple common sense. We need houses, we need work. Build houses and employ people. We've got loads of land, use some of it to bring the price of building land down. The trouble is that doing so would precipitate a house price crash. That would do us all good in the long run. It would cost some votes though:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Nothing has happened for about a year. Maybe they should all give their salaries and expenses back:) The stuff that I suggested above ought to gain cross party support. It is simple common sense. We need houses, we need work. Build houses and employ people. We've got loads of land, use some of it to bring the price of building land down. The trouble is that doing so would precipitate a house price crash. That would do us all good in the long run. It would cost some votes though:) Cross party support????? Wash your mouth out!!! And I'd question the point about the land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Cross party support????? Wash your mouth out!!! And I'd question the point about the land. Have a look at this. It calls into question the reasons for being so protective of the green belt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts