In message , at 18:29:53 on Mon, 14 Sep
2015, tim..... remarked:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 17:51:26 on Sun, 13 Sep
2015, tim..... remarked:
IME Developers want to charge premium prices for their new-builds
far in excess of what they cost to build

The price is based on the cost of the land,...

Oh how naive of you

the minimum selling price may be based upon what you say but the
actual selling price is based upon what the developer thinks punters
will pay, often the latter is significantly in excess of the former

I disagree. Having studied this business model in some detail, the
minimum selling price for property is around 80% of what they are
marketed for. And why would a developer go to all that trouble to
then sell at cost?

who said anything about selling at cost?

Anyone who claims that they should reduce the selling price from the
current.

my argument is they try to sell for MORE (much more) than the minimum
amount (FTAOD your definition of this figure)

But they don't.
--
Roland Perry

On 2015-09-14 17:32:35 +0000, tim..... said:

Like we haven't spent the last 40 years trying.

Barely.

Just what is this magic solution you've been keeping to yourself?

One option would be to move more Government functions. Leave London as
the ceremonial capital, and have another city as the administrative
capital. Birmingham is probably better located for much of the UK.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

Harold Wilson's Government tried that. They moved several Government
departments to the regions. It didn't stop house prices rising.

No, I meant exactly what I said. British industry suffered from enormous
external problems throughout the 1970s and survived. It didn't survive
Thatcher. A simple, indisputable truth that Thatcher idolators refuse to
concede.

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 02:26:56PM +0000, y wrote:
On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 13:26:46 +0100
David Cantrell wrote:
On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 02:48:21PM +0000, y wrote:
You can't dump 8 million new people into a country over 15 years ...
Population in 2000: 58.9 million
Population in 2015: 64.9 million
I know that 6 and 8 look a bit similar if you squint, but they are in
fact different.
You forgot the number of british nationals who were born abroad. They still
count as immigrants.

No, I didn't forget about them. I looked at population growth over the
last fifteen years. That would have included all immigrants.

But you weren't talking about all immigrants, only those who were
"dumped" here. Someone who was already a UK citizen when they came here
can't have been "dumped" here, so your figure of 8 million is only
talking about a subset of all immigrants, so is even more laughably
wrong.

The latest estimate for non-UK born, non-UK nationals living in Britain is 4.9 m
illion, the ONS said, just under 8% of the population (or one in 13 people)."

I'll believe the ONS rather than you thanks.

4.9 million isn't 8 million either, and that's those living here right
now, not those who immigrated over the last 15 years. Your 4.9 million
include people who came here in the 50s and even earlier.

--
David Cantrell | Bourgeois reactionary pig

I think the most difficult moment that anyone could face is seeing
their domestic servants, whether maid or drivers, run away
-- Abdul Rahman Al-Sheikh, writing on 25 Jan 2004 at
http://archive.arabnews.com/?article=38558

On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 13:45:36 +0100
David Cantrell wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 02:26:56PM +0000, y wrote:
On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 13:26:46 +0100
David Cantrell wrote:
On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 02:48:21PM +0000, y wrote:
You can't dump 8 million new people into a country over 15 years ...
Population in 2000: 58.9 million
Population in 2015: 64.9 million
I know that 6 and 8 look a bit similar if you squint, but they are in
fact different.
You forgot the number of british nationals who were born abroad. They still
count as immigrants.

No, I didn't forget about them. I looked at population growth over the
last fifteen years. That would have included all immigrants.

And you conveniently ignored the number of emigrants which runs at about
200-300K a year. You do the maths. And of course a lot of those emigrants
will be retirees who may well lock up and leave their houses for their kids
to inherit.

But you weren't talking about all immigrants, only those who were
"dumped" here. Someone who was already a UK citizen when they came here
can't have been "dumped" here, so your figure of 8 million is only
talking about a subset of all immigrants, so is even more laughably
wrong.

As far as I'm concerned someone who was born abroad isn't british. A passport
means nothing. So sorry Mo Farah and Sandi Toxic.

Anyway, this is all hair splitting. You know perfectly well that allowing
millions into the country is going to put pressure on housing , the NHS,
schools, transport, utilities et al, but of course your political leanings
will mean you'll contort yourself into knots trying not to admit it. I've
never really understood if people like you are truly this stupid or simply
delusional. Its one or the other. Either way, you're part of the problem.

--
Spud

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
news
In message , at 18:29:53 on Mon, 14 Sep 2015,
tim..... remarked:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 17:51:26 on Sun, 13 Sep
2015, tim..... remarked:
IME Developers want to charge premium prices for their new-builds far
in excess of what they cost to build

The price is based on the cost of the land,...

Oh how naive of you

the minimum selling price may be based upon what you say but the actual
selling price is based upon what the developer thinks punters will pay,
often the latter is significantly in excess of the former

I disagree. Having studied this business model in some detail, the
minimum selling price for property is around 80% of what they are
marketed for. And why would a developer go to all that trouble to
then sell at cost?

who said anything about selling at cost?

Anyone who claims that they should reduce the selling price from the
current.

but no-one did

my argument is they try to sell for MORE (much more) than the minimum
amount (FTAOD your definition of this figure)

But they don't.

Oh yes they do

(perhaps not in your examples)


tim

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...
On 2015-09-14 17:32:35 +0000, tim..... said:

Like we haven't spent the last 40 years trying.

Barely.

Just what is this magic solution you've been keeping to yourself?

One option would be to move more Government functions.

that's where the 40 years comes from

the DVLA to Swansea and DHSS admin to Newcastle being prime examples

Leave London as the ceremonial capital, and have another city as the
administrative capital. Birmingham is probably better located for much of
the UK.

But you wont get the Mandarins to go there

tim



Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

In message , at 20:26:56 on Tue, 15 Sep
2015, tim..... remarked:

who said anything about selling at cost?

Anyone who claims that they should reduce the selling price from the
current.

but no-one did

It's what started this whole discussion here about house building.

my argument is they try to sell for MORE (much more) than the minimum
amount (FTAOD your definition of this figure)

But they don't.

Oh yes they do

(perhaps not in your examples)

--
Roland Perry

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 01:43:02PM +0000, y wrote:

As far as I'm concerned someone who was born abroad isn't british.

Oh, so the children of a British soldier based in Germany aren't
British. That's quite an unusual point of view.

--
David Cantrell | Enforcer, South London Linguistic Massive

Hail Caesar! Those about to vi ^[ you!