Should all 25 year olds be given a £10,000 helping hand from the government?

First topic message reminder :

Its a possibility....good idea or bad?

"A minimum inheritance of £10,000 should be available for 25-year-olds in the UK, a think tank has suggested.
Tax reforms and a sell-off of some assets including the Government stake in RBS could help create a Citizens' Wealth Fund, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) said.
The fund could be worth £186 billion by 2029/30, if started from 2020/21, a report by the left-of-centre think tank's Commission on Economic Justice concluded.
The proposal could help address what the think tank described as growing inequality in the UK, "giving everyone a stake and a say in the economy".




https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/25-year-olds-should-10000-12289850

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Glad we can agree, (if you do of course) makes a nice change  

It does indeed. The trouble is that house prices would have to crash everywhere, not just in certain areas. If prices stayed high in some places and crashed in others, people would buy in the cheaper areas and push the prices up again.

They dont have to crash Rags, they simple have to slowly but surely come down

I get your point how it would be a diaster in how in one place it could crash and in others actually go up.

The fact is, people themselves need to stop paying these prices and ensure it does go down.

It requires people to put the people of this nation first before their own wealth. Which is difficult, when we pay a crap minbimum wage and state pension.

Why do you think crime is so low in places like Holland?

Less relative poverty

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I said people have to wait longer for their state pension. Which bit of that did you not understand? I was not talking about personal pensions. Everyone knows that people generally don't save enough in their personal pensions, hence the introduction of work place pensions, which don't take enough from an employee's pay, but it's a start.

I'll say it again. Young people don't care about others any more than older people do.  If they can make a profit, they'll do it. They'll push up house prices themselves by taking out the maximum mortgage. There needs to be regulation re mortgages and house prices - nobody is doing to voluntarily reduce the price they want for their house.

Does it matter if they have to wait for them longer, when those with private pensions do not and can litterally blow all that money and can still be able to rely on a state pension?

I understand how I easily tie you constantly up in knots

So you invoke a load of cobblers over what young people think and base this exactly on what?

Your opinion and a poor one at that, or actual empirical evidence?

People will take out a mortgage these days simple to get a house and will spend the better part of their lives paying this off. Again it is thise view to buy a house and then later sell for a profit, which you have been indoctrinated with, which needs to change. Considering I have a house and do not think as you do, proves your claim that all young people thing this, is complete bollocks.

Yes, it does matter because people have to wait longer to get the state pension. They can't rely on getting it at 65 (or 60 as was the case for women). Those who do cash in their personal pension early may well run out of money and still have to wait years to get their state pension. They can either buy property as an investment or pay a fortune into their personal pension earlier on in order to get a decent pension.

Besides, do you not know that many people have not saved enough in their personal pensions to retire at 60, never mind 55? We've had this conversations many times where members have said that people can't afford to pay into their personal pensions or save any money at all.

I have not been indoctrinated at all. I've said several times that house prices should fall and/or be regulated.

Are you seriously suggesting that a young person who buys a house thinks about others when it comes to selling that house? Of course they don't - they want to get as much as they can for it.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It does indeed. The trouble is that house prices would have to crash everywhere, not just in certain areas. If prices stayed high in some places and crashed in others, people would buy in the cheaper areas and push the prices up again.

They dont have to crash Rags, they simple have to slowly but surely come down

I get your point how it would be a diaster in how in one place it could crash and in others actually go up.

The fact is, people themselves need to stop paying these prices and ensure it does go down.

It requires people to put the people of this nation first before their own wealth. Which is difficult, when we pay a crap minbimum wage and state pension.

Why do you think crime is so low in places like Holland?

Less relative poverty

A bubble bursting or crashing usually means that it happens drastically. House prices in some areas did come down quite drastically at some point in the 90s. I even considered buying a house in London at that time!

How are you going to persuade someone to refuse to pay a high prices for a house? You'd need everyone to refuse to pay a high price for that same house.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Does it matter if they have to wait for them longer, when those with private pensions do not and can litterally blow all that money and can still be able to rely on a state pension?

I understand how I easily tie you constantly up in knots

So you invoke a load of cobblers over what young people think and base this exactly on what?

Your opinion and a poor one at that, or actual empirical evidence?

People will take out a mortgage these days simple to get a house and will spend the better part of their lives paying this off. Again it is thise view to buy a house and then later sell for a profit, which you have been indoctrinated with, which needs to change. Considering I have a house and do not think as you do, proves your claim that all young people thing this, is complete bollocks.

Yes, it does matter because people have to wait longer to get the state pension. They can't rely on getting it at 65 (or 60 as was the case for women). Those who do cash in their personal pension early may well run out of money and still have to wait years to get their state pension. They can either buy property as an investment or pay a fortune into their personal pension earlier on in order to get a decent pension.

I have not been indoctrinated at all. I've said several times that house prices should fall and/or be regulated.

Are you seriously suggesting that a young person who buys a house thinks about others when it comes to selling that house? Of course they don't - they want to get as much as they can for it.

Who said anything about relying on this at 65, when people know the retirement age is increasing?

Well if they do cash in early they still can get their state pension and live a good life when they have retired early. They may struggle on a state pension, but the point is, they can blow all that money and have a fall back. Can you not se that?

Yes i am suggesting that some young people do think about others, when it comes to buying and selling

You keep making bold claims and do this not based off again evidence, but how you yourself think of younger people.

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

money makes money.    It's called enterprise.   Can you blame people for wanting to make money?    I do think though that there should be a limit to how many homes you can own as buy to let.  

Housing is such a basic requirement though, so should it be used to make money? I don't think so. I think it's OK to buy somewhere to use the rent to live on, but not to make huge profits by buying and selling.

I think house prices are stupidly high, but who is to blame for that? Rents are even worse. People have as much right to rent out properties as any other means of income but there should be a strict cap on how much they can charge. Having said that, so far as I know, one can appeal to a rent tribunal and get the rent lowered if it's deemed too high.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, it does matter because people have to wait longer to get the state pension. They can't rely on getting it at 65 (or 60 as was the case for women). Those who do cash in their personal pension early may well run out of money and still have to wait years to get their state pension. They can either buy property as an investment or pay a fortune into their personal pension earlier on in order to get a decent pension.

I have not been indoctrinated at all. I've said several times that house prices should fall and/or be regulated.

Are you seriously suggesting that a young person who buys a house thinks about others when it comes to selling that house? Of course they don't - they want to get as much as they can for it.

Who said anything about relying on this at 65, when people know the retirement age is increasing?

Well if they do cash in early they still can get their state pension and live a good life when they have retired early. They may struggle on a state pension, but the point is, they can blow all that money and have a fall back. Can you not se that?

Yes i am suggesting that some young people do think about others, when it comes to buying and selling

You keep making bold claims and do this not based off again evidence, but  how you yourself think of younger people.

BIB was my point. They can't rely on it, that's why many people like to invest for the future by buying property. They think it is more reliable and profitable than a personal pension - the value of which can go down. Of course house prices can go down too, but they never seem to.

If you have a young couple who want to buy a house, are you really suggesting that they would continue renting or living at home on the grounds that paying a high price for a house would be bad for other young people? Get real.

Didge wrote:Okay, I am not seeing any actual reason, why we should not set as 10k for all children, who go on later to be adults in the future?

I do not see how this collective money is a bad thing and why it would be a bad thing?

All I see is a view that people do not actually read a link and why this money would be used for the benefit of many people, who actually needed it?

Arguments about people being irresponsible with money shows people are not actually reading the actual link itself

So I ask again, what is really bad about setting aside for the future money for the next generation, which will benefit then all those and after generations?

Still waiting for someone to actually try and answer this?????????

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Housing is such a basic requirement though, so should it be used to make money? I don't think so. I think it's OK to buy somewhere to use the rent to live on, but not to make huge profits by buying and selling.

I think house prices are stupidly high, but who is to blame for that?   Rents are even worse.   People have as much right to rent out properties as any other means of income but there should be a strict cap on how much they can charge.   Having said that, so far as I know, one can appeal to a rent tribunal and get the rent lowered if it's deemed too high.

Good question. Who is to blame? Is it the banks who lend silly amounts of money to people? Is it the buyers who are prepared to pay silly money? Is it the sellers who know they can get whatever they want for their house so they raise the price?

I totally agree about a rent cap, and it needs to be a realistic one. Renting privately around here costs twice what it costs to rent via the council or housing association.

I'll just add that it's not just young people who struggle to buy or pay rent. Plenty of older people do too. That is why it would be wrong to discriminate against them by giving young people money and not giving older people anything.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Who said anything about relying on this at 65, when people know the retirement age is increasing?

Well if they do cash in early they still can get their state pension and live a good life when they have retired early. They may struggle on a state pension, but the point is, they can blow all that money and have a fall back. Can you not se that?

Yes i am suggesting that some young people do think about others, when it comes to buying and selling

You keep making bold claims and do this not based off again evidence, but  how you yourself think of younger people.

BIB was my point. They can't rely on it, that's why many people like to invest for the future by buying property. They think it is more reliable and profitable than a personal pension - the value of which can go down. Of course house prices can go down too, but they never seem to.

If you have a young couple who want to buy a house, are you really suggesting that they would continue renting or living at home on the grounds that paying a high price  for a house would be bad for other young people? Get real.

It is you making the suggestions on young people, as you are doing above

You think all people are materialistic and again base this on what?

I do not deny there is a cultural problem that nopw instills a view on people with materialism, but again to think this makes then all people think its about profit has no bases and you are just invoking this based on no evidence. You just believe this to be the case.

What we really need is a better way in how we look at life. I back capitalism (even though it has many flaws), as its about the only system that does work and see how when it comes down to it. The people who work hardest, ensure there is more work for everyone else. But that is not for everyone. Some people have that in them, but again many people today, have a poor work ethos and technology, more than anything, is creating this problem. Its like we now have gadgets that easily distract people

I mean how many times do you see people constantly on their phones and hooked on them?

Its like an addiction, that they cannot put them down for two seconds, just to have a conversation

Society has to rethink, in what direction it is heading

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

I think house prices are stupidly high, but who is to blame for that?   Rents are even worse.   People have as much right to rent out properties as any other means of income but there should be a strict cap on how much they can charge.   Having said that, so far as I know, one can appeal to a rent tribunal and get the rent lowered if it's deemed too high.

Good question. Who is to blame? Is it the banks who lend silly amounts of money to people? Is it the buyers who are prepared to pay silly money? Is it the sellers who know they can get whatever they want for their house so they raise the price?

I totally agree about a rent cap, and it needs to be a realistic one. Renting privately around here costs twice what it costs to rent via the council or housing association.

Only the banks and perhaps those with several properties benefit from high house prices. These high prices mean that people will have to take out larger mortgages for longer periods of time, which means more money in interest payments for the banks. And ultimately, this is what the banks want and strive for.

Too many people are chasing too few houses. This country is getting smaller by the decade. Property prices in London are getting pushed up because of foreign buyers.

Raggamuffin wrote:I'll just add that it's not just young people who struggle to buy or pay rent. Plenty of older people do too. That is why it would be wrong to discriminate against them by giving young people money and not giving older people anything.

That's very true. People seem to forget about the elderly, and the horrible ways they often are forced to live. It's easy for the young to feel hard done by, but they have youth and years ahead of them. You can be poor and young and at least have some hope on the distant horizon. But it's far worse being poor and old with absolutely no future ahead.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I'll just add that it's not just young people who struggle to buy or pay rent. Plenty of older people do too. That is why it would be wrong to discriminate against them by giving young people money and not giving older people anything.

That's very true.   People seem to forget about the elderly, and the horrible ways they often are forced to live.  It's easy for the young to feel hard done by, but they have youth and years ahead of them.   You can be poor and young and at least have some hope on the distant horizon.  But it's far worse being poor and old with absolutely no future ahead.

Well dont you then think that such a fund, is going to help ensure that when these people are older. It will reduce the risk, that they may suffer Horatio?

I agree, that when people are older and poor, espcially how they are more vunerable to illness, is a major problem. Hence why I am baffled at why people are againt an idea, which places money to the young, to think about people in the future???

I also think the state pension is appallingly poor and that the elderly should have free electricity and gas bills over the winter months.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

BIB was my point. They can't rely on it, that's why many people like to invest for the future by buying property. They think it is more reliable and profitable than a personal pension - the value of which can go down. Of course house prices can go down too, but they never seem to.

If you have a young couple who want to buy a house, are you really suggesting that they would continue renting or living at home on the grounds that paying a high price  for a house would be bad for other young people? Get real.

It is you making the suggestions on young people, as you are doing above

You think all people are materialistic and again base this on what?

I do not deny there is a cultural problem that nopw instills a view on people with materialism, but again to think this makes then all people think its about profit has no bases and you are just invoking this based on no evidence. You just believe this to be the case.

What we really need is a better way in how we look at life. I back capitalism (even though it has many flaws), as its about the only system that does work and see how when it comes down to it. The people who work hardest, ensure there is more work for everyone else. But that is not for everyone. Some people have that in them, but again many people today, have a poor work ethos and technology, more than anything, is creating this problem. Its like we now have gadgets that easily distract people

I mean how many times do you see people constantly on their phones and hooked on them?

Its like an addiction, that they cannot put them down for two seconds, just to have a conversation

Society has to rethink, in what direction it is heading

I do think that people are generally materialistic, but one doesn't have to be materialistic to pay a lot for a house. If that's the only way to buy one, people will do it - even young people. You can call that being materialistic if you like. The point is that they're not going to refuse to buy one on the grounds that they might push prices up. They're not going to sacrifice themselves for others, and it wouldn't work anyway because there will always be people who are prepared to pay the going rate. They make a profit by default really when they sell because they're not going to say to the buyer - oh, you don't need to pay that much for our house.

I agree about phones, and I don't tolerate fiddling on their phone for ages when they're supposed to be talking to me, unless it's an emergency, or unless we're looking up something on the internet together (not on my phone obviously).

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

It is you making the suggestions on young people, as you are doing above

You think all people are materialistic and again base this on what?

I do not deny there is a cultural problem that nopw instills a view on people with materialism, but again to think this makes then all people think its about profit has no bases and you are just invoking this based on no evidence. You just believe this to be the case.

What we really need is a better way in how we look at life. I back capitalism (even though it has many flaws), as its about the only system that does work and see how when it comes down to it. The people who work hardest, ensure there is more work for everyone else. But that is not for everyone. Some people have that in them, but again many people today, have a poor work ethos and technology, more than anything, is creating this problem. Its like we now have gadgets that easily distract people

I mean how many times do you see people constantly on their phones and hooked on them?

Its like an addiction, that they cannot put them down for two seconds, just to have a conversation

Society has to rethink, in what direction it is heading

I do think that people are generally materialistic, but one doesn't have to be materialistic to pay a lot for a house. If that's the only way to buy one, people will do it - even young people. You can call that being materialistic if you like. The point is that they're not going to refuse to buy one on the grounds that they might push prices up. They're not going to sacrifice themselves for others, and it wouldn't work anyway because there will always be people who are prepared to pay the going rate.  They make a profit by default really when they sell because they're not going to say to the buyer - oh, you don't need to pay that much for our house.

I agree about phones, and I don't tolerate fiddling on their phone for ages when they're supposed to be talking to me, unless it's an emergency, or unless we're looking up something on the internet together (not on my phone obviously).

I disagree that they are not generally materialistic, when in fact most buy material objects daily, in order to feel good about themselves. Its like the really dumb idea of comfort shopping (retail therapy). Thinking this will make a person feel better, when it only ever momentarily does so. Where it then causes far more problems. As people then worry at how much money they have then wasted on things they dont actually really need. People buy far more clothes to feel and look good about themselves. Neglecting the very fact they do not need them to feel happy. They are basically losing the ability to be happy and thus using material substitutes to momentarily feel better. If they falt happy within themselves, they would never need to go comfort shopping and yet countless people do.

The fact is now gadgets play a central role in peoples everyday lives and some cannot even live without them.

If you do not believe me, ask your friends to spend a week without them and watch how then become easily stressed without their phones, laptops etc?

The reality is Capitalism is about the best system going, but it does have flaws and one of these flaws is now being seen, the more advanced we become in technology. People are losing the ability to talk to each other daily. You yourself use public tansport, how many people are glued to their phones on the train? You agree with me on this and thus this is a problem.

So the point is technology, thus materialism, is basically controlling the lives of people. Its also making people very lazy, as it becomes a distraction for people.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I do think that people are generally materialistic, but one doesn't have to be materialistic to pay a lot for a house. If that's the only way to buy one, people will do it - even young people. You can call that being materialistic if you like. The point is that they're not going to refuse to buy one on the grounds that they might push prices up. They're not going to sacrifice themselves for others, and it wouldn't work anyway because there will always be people who are prepared to pay the going rate.  They make a profit by default really when they sell because they're not going to say to the buyer - oh, you don't need to pay that much for our house.

I agree about phones, and I don't tolerate fiddling on their phone for ages when they're supposed to be talking to me, unless it's an emergency, or unless we're looking up something on the internet together (not on my phone obviously).

I disagree that they are not generally materialistic, when in fact most buy material objects daily, in order to feel good about themselves. Its like the really dumb idea of comfort shopping (retail therapy). Thinking this will make a person feel better, when it only ever momentarily does so. Where it then causes far more problems. As people then worry at how much money they have then wasted on things they dont actually really need. People buy far more clothes to feel and look good about themselves. Neglecting the very fact they do not need them to feel happy. They are basically losing the ability to be happy and thus using material substitutes to momentarily feel better. If they falt happy within themselves, they would never need to go comfort shopping and yet countless people do.

The fact is now gadgets play a central role in peoples everyday lives and some cannot even live without them.

If you do not believe me, ask your friends to spend a week without them and watch how then become easily stressed without their phones, laptops etc?

The reality is Capitalism is about the best system going, but it does have flaws and one of these flaws is now being seen, the more advanced we become in technology. People are losing the ability to talk to each other daily. You yourself use public tansport, how many people are glued to their phones on the train? You agree with me on this and thus this is a problem.

So the point is technology, thus materialism, is basically controlling the lives of people. Its also making people very lazy, as it becomes a distraction for people.

BIB - we're in agreement then. Did you misunderstand what I said? I said I do think that people are generally materialistic. Of course, some people like the actual ritual of shopping - they're not that bothered what they actually buy.

Decluttering is a big thing these days. Young people acquire things, and then when they're middle aged, they want to get rid of "stuff".

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


I disagree that they are not generally materialistic, when in fact most buy material objects daily, in order to feel good about themselves. Its like the really dumb idea of comfort shopping (retail therapy). Thinking this will make a person feel better, when it only ever momentarily does so. Where it then causes far more problems. As people then worry at how much money they have then wasted on things they dont actually really need. People buy far more clothes to feel and look good about themselves. Neglecting the very fact they do not need them to feel happy. They are basically losing the ability to be happy and thus using material substitutes to momentarily feel better. If they falt happy within themselves, they would never need to go comfort shopping and yet countless people do.

The fact is now gadgets play a central role in peoples everyday lives and some cannot even live without them.

If you do not believe me, ask your friends to spend a week without them and watch how then become easily stressed without their phones, laptops etc?

The reality is Capitalism is about the best system going, but it does have flaws and one of these flaws is now being seen, the more advanced we become in technology. People are losing the ability to talk to each other daily. You yourself use public tansport, how many people are glued to their phones on the train? You agree with me on this and thus this is a problem.

So the point is technology, thus materialism, is basically controlling the lives of people. Its also making people very lazy, as it becomes a distraction for people.

BIB - we're in agreement then. Did you misunderstand what I said? I said I do think that people are generally materialistic. Of course, some people like the actual ritual of shopping - they're not that bothered what they actually buy.

Decluttering is a big thing these days. Young people acquire things, and then when they're middle aged, they want to get rid of "stuff".

lol, I did misread and thought you said you did not think. My mistake, sorry.. ha ha  

A prime example of me not doing what I tell others to do. Read properly what someone has written and I just failed miserably at doing that myself.



The only thing I keep these days is books and on that happilly horde many..

Its not materialistic to want a house, as its a basic need, for anyone to want a roof over their heads, after the first need, to feed ourselves.

Mass immigration has driven up housing costs as there has been a bigger increase in demand than there has been for supply... basic economics...!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:Mass immigration has driven up housing costs as there has been a bigger increase in demand than there has been for supply... basic economics...!!!

https://fullfact.org/immigration/have-house-prices-risen-because-immigrants/

Fullfact...?


Bullshit!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:Fullfact...?


Bullshit!!!

It was not for your benefit Tommy and yet you dimiss evidence out of hand

The only thing bullshit, is your reply

Fullfact = bullshit

Tommy Monk wrote:Fullfact = bullshit

Fullfact seems to be your kryptonite

Tommy Monk wrote:Mass immigration has driven up housing costs as there has been a bigger increase in demand than there has been for supply... basic economics...!!!

Well yes, the more demand there is for housing, the more greedy sellers or those who rent out their houses will be.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Mass immigration has driven up housing costs as there has been a bigger increase in demand than there has been for supply... basic economics...!!!

Well yes, the more demand there is for housing, the more greedy sellers or those who rent out their houses will be. 

So if its down to greedy people, what has that got to do with immigration?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well yes, the more demand there is for housing, the more greedy sellers or those who rent out their houses will be. 

So if its down to greedy people, what has that got to do with immigration?

I didn't mention immigration. However, immigration increases the number of people who are looking for housing, so those greedy people can charge more.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


So if its down to greedy people, what has that got to do with immigration?

I didn't mention immigration. However, immigration increases the number of people who are looking for housing, so those greedy people can charge more.

Well you did say "well yes" to Tommy's post on claiming Immigration has driven up housing cost

So what in fact were you then in agreement on?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I didn't mention immigration. However, immigration increases the number of people who are looking for housing, so those greedy people can charge more.

Well you did say "well yes" to Tommy's post on claiming Immigration has driven up housing cost

So what in fact were you then in agreement on?

I'm sure it has - because it involves more people looking for housing, unless the same number of people are leaving the country.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Well you did say "well yes" to Tommy's post on claiming Immigration has driven up housing cost

So what in fact were you then in agreement on?

I'm sure it has - because it involves more people looking for housing, unless the same number of people are leaving the country.

So you did agree and you base this on what evidence?

A feeling?

After stating you believe its down to greedy people.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm sure it has - because it involves more people looking for housing, unless the same number of people are leaving the country.

So you did agree and you base this on what evidence?

A feeling?

After stating you believe its down to greedy people.

I base it on logic. If there are more people looking for housing, those selling houses know that they can charge more because there is a demand for it. If there is no demand, they have to drop the price to get some interest.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


So you did agree and you base this on what evidence?

A feeling?

After stating you believe its down to greedy people.

I base it on logic. If there are more people looking for housing, those selling houses know that they can charge more because there is a demand for it. If there is no demand, they have to drop the price to get some interest.

So you are basing this again on a feeling and not any logic.

You are basing this on a perceived perception of people in society

As again, what has that got to do with immigration and then people being greedy?

How is immigration at fault for that? When surely the same happens, whether there is immigration or not?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I base it on logic. If there are more people looking for housing, those selling houses know that they can charge more because there is a demand for it. If there is no demand, they have to drop the price to get some interest.

So you are basing this again on a feeling and not any logic.

You are basing this on a perceived perception of people in society

As again, what has that got to do with immigration and then people being greedy?

How is immigration at fault for that? When surely the same happens, whether there is immigration or not?

No, I'm basing it on logic. You clearly don't understand the concept of supply and demand.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


So you are basing this again on a feeling and not any logic.

You are basing this on a perceived perception of people in society

As again, what has that got to do with immigration and then people being greedy?

How is immigration at fault for that? When surely the same happens, whether there is immigration or not?

No, I'm basing it on logic. You clearly don't understand the concept of supply and demand.

What logic?

You said its based on people being greedy, did you not?

What has then that got to do with immigration, on where people are greedy on house prices?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No, I'm basing it on logic. You clearly don't understand the concept of supply and demand.

What logic?

You said its based on people being greedy, did you not?

What has then that got to do with immigration, on where people are greedy on house prices?

I've already explained. If you can't understand what I said, that's your problem.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


What logic?

You said its based on people being greedy, did you not?

What has then that got to do with immigration, on where people are greedy on house prices?

I've already explained. If you can't understand what I said, that's your problem.

I understand you are contradicting yourself

As again, if some people are greedy, then that is the issue that causes house prices to rise and has then nothing to do with immigration

Its okay to be wrong sometimes Rags, as I am myself, but I see no valid reason why immigration is the cause of rising house prices and based on your own views.

Funny thing is didge... your fullfact link actually agrees that immigration has pushed up housing costs...

Tommy Monk wrote:Funny thing is didge... your fullfact link actually agrees that immigration has pushed up housing costs...

I thought it proved that there was no evidence Tommy that it does and that it was inconclusive

You see how like as i said to rags, people believe what they want to believe

Did the article state, that immigration has pushed up housing prices


Come on Tommy, show the evidence from the article?

This is why I do truley think you are retarded  

Tommy Monk wrote:Funny thing is didge... your fullfact link actually agrees that immigration has pushed up housing costs...

That's what I thought.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Funny thing is didge... your fullfact link actually agrees that immigration has pushed up housing costs...

That's what I thought.

Well can either of you show me where it does agree with Tommy?



Take your time

Wow, I gave a link yesterday and neither Tommy or Rags, can back up their claim.

Hell, that proves people do not read links

One moment 

What it proves didge, is that you don't UNDERSTAND what is being said in links... no matter how much you READ them...

Tommy Monk wrote:What it proves didge, is that you don't UNDERSTAND what is being said in links... no matter how much you READ them...

Well I read the links Tommy, why is it you cannot back up what you think they claim..?

You READ but you dont UNDERSTAND...!

Tommy Monk wrote:You READ but you dont UNDERSTAND...!

Oh okay

So, what you are saying, is that I have to be bigoted to understand something you understand with bigotry?

Where does it state that Tommy?

Or is it, you are the problem here?

Is the ramadan fasting getting to you already didge...?

Tommy Monk wrote:Is the ramadan fasting getting to you already didge...?

As I am an athiest?

Not sure how it would Tommy???