Seems to have all gone quiet on this thread.
To summarise:
Notch thinks people in big houses that they worked and paid for years ago that have gone up due to inflation and the rise in the property market should be forced to trade down to a smaller property or be taxed to remain in their own property. Notch has not said what size house he is living in and how many people live in that house with or whether he would be prepared to trade town or be taxed to remain there if and when those people leave.
Galahad thinks that the little old lady living in a big house that she worked and paid for should downsize so that a couple living with their parents can move in because they need the space but doesn’t even consider that the couple living with their parents could move into the house that he wants the little old lady to downsize to. He says this is because she did nothing to the house while the price went up because other people invested in the area, built shops, housing and people have moved in and the price of the house she lives in has increased without her doing anything and she has benefitted from that.
JohnD is against what he calls 'tax avoidance' but won’t admit whether he is avoiding tax on his European investments and dividends.
Have I got that right or have I missed anything?
Re: the "little old lady". Currently:
She lives in a house she owns. Great.
It is far bigger than she needs. OK.
Hopefully, she can manage to run it, and keep it comfortable.
It is, in effect, a pile of cash that is not hers, but her beneficiaries'.
Meanwhile, (due to the inflated cost of housing when compared to the average person's income),
many people, whether they be single, coupled-up, families etc, cannot afford to either buy nor rent a house for themselves.
And the government are doing little to make provision for those families.
Apart from the little old lady's warm glow, from living in her own house and the knowledge that her beneficiaries will be able to carry on the cycle on the hamster wheel, who benefits?
