Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
08 Jan 15
21:03
Joined:
Date Joined:
05 Apr 06
...
Show More
The richest man I've ever known personally is my Uncle and who is also my Godfather, he is the tightest git on Earth even his own children don't talk to him. He would pick up a penny on the street.
I don't want anything from him, I hate the bloke. He was always living in the shadow of my Dad, his only brother who everyone adored and he despised that fact. If he does leave me anything which is highly unlikely I'll give it to my nephews and nieces as I don't want it.
excellent programme.
To balance up the gross inequality and get the average wage in this country of £27,000 a year to equate to a half decent standard of life it needs the government to force a property price collapse.
Though many of the middle classes don't even want this as they like the sound of my house is worth £350k instead of my house is worth £150k. Though in effect that doesn't make a jot to their lifestyle as they have to live somewhere.
This would be a disaster for the super rich and huge foreign investors buying up of property and land in this country. Not to live in, but just to rent out and force prices even higher.
Suggestions such as large taxation on second properties and huge taxation on multiple property owners.
All new developments both residential and business, a percentage of that property or rental income to be given to the government.
75% inheritance tax on property. (£100k max tax free)
Rent payable on all property owned by companies based on value of the property.
With lower rent/mortgage payments then the average household would then spend the spare money creating more jobs and keep the money in circulation etc.
A problem with the money going into the rich peoples pockets is it isn't being circulated in the economy, its just builds in their accounts or used to buy more land/property making the problem worse.
But Mr Cameron said no to all this, as he doesn't want to upset his rich chums.
To balance up the gross inequality and get the average wage in this country of £27,000 a year to equate to a half decent standard of life it needs the government to force a property price collapse.
Though many of the middle classes don't even want this as they like the sound of my house is worth £350k instead of my house is worth £150k. Though in effect that doesn't make a jot to their lifestyle as they have to live somewhere.
This would be a disaster for the super rich and huge foreign investors buying up of property and land in this country. Not to live in, but just to rent out and force prices even higher.
Suggestions such as large taxation on second properties and huge taxation on multiple property owners.
All new developments both residential and business, a percentage of that property or rental income to be given to the government.
75% inheritance tax on property. (£100k max tax free)
Rent payable on all property owned by companies based on value of the property.
With lower rent/mortgage payments then the average household would then spend the spare money creating more jobs and keep the money in circulation etc.
A problem with the money going into the rich peoples pockets is it isn't being circulated in the economy, its just builds in their accounts or used to buy more land/property making the problem worse.
But Mr Cameron said no to all this, as he doesn't want to upset his rich chums.
To basically get back to the principle that a house/flat is somewhere to live in.
Rather than an investment.
Rather than an investment.
To balance up the gross inequality and get the average wage in this country of £27,000 a year to equate to a half decent standard of life it needs the government to force a property price collapse.
All new developments both residential and business, a percentage of that property or rental income to be given to the government.
If only it were as simple as that.
The first point would completely collapse the banking and financial system as all the loans and mortgages secured against property would be worthless.
The second point would lead to less property being built, creating a shortage which would then push prices up again.
Also anyone building or letting property would have to ask more for the property to pay the extra tax, again shoving up prices.
The problem with any economic "solution" is the extra problems it creates by unbalancing other areas of the economy which in turn lead to unbalances further along, and so it goes on bouncing and affecting surprising areas later on.
All new developments both residential and business, a percentage of that property or rental income to be given to the government.
If only it were as simple as that.
The first point would completely collapse the banking and financial system as all the loans and mortgages secured against property would be worthless.
The second point would lead to less property being built, creating a shortage which would then push prices up again.
Also anyone building or letting property would have to ask more for the property to pay the extra tax, again shoving up prices.
The problem with any economic "solution" is the extra problems it creates by unbalancing other areas of the economy which in turn lead to unbalances further along, and so it goes on bouncing and affecting surprising areas later on.
Very interesting programme.
Oh, and by the way, everywhere isn't in London.
Oh, and by the way, everywhere isn't in London.
A good example of an unexpected economic outcome was when the government put up the betting tax from 5 to 10% thinking this would double the amount of revenue. In fact they ended up collecting less as a lot of betting went abroad or/and underground and a lot of the big players packed up because the increase wiped out their profits.
Obvious with hindsight but not to the government's financial experts at the time.
Obvious with hindsight but not to the government's financial experts at the time.
I watched this, the up himself tw*t who in between fancying himself managed to fit in presenting the program, was ridiculously left wing for the supposedly impartial BBC.
It was about as balanced as an extended film made by the Guardian featuring that pr*ck Owen Jones, so not at all.
It was riddled with loaded language, inaccuracies, logical fallacies, and stating many facts and conclusions that are actually just his personal opinion or made up.
I mean he throws out the fact that it would take 22 years to save 30k. Where does that completely made up figure come from?
He kept on muddling up evasion and avoidance when they are completely different things. This is basic language but he just couldn't get it right.
He even seemed to think the 83% tax rate that WAS damaging the country, was actually fine and said that dropping it to a more reasonable 60% tax, this was the government "adopting tax avoidance as a policy"!!
What an unbelievably biased and incredibly stupid thing to say, I can't believe the BBC could allow something so ridiculously biased be said. Anyone who can say anything THAT stupid has no business being a BBC journalist. Also came the
attack on Thatcher that was so predictable from minute one of the program, and the rose tinted revisionism as to the state of Britain in the 70s when taxes were very high was a complete joke.
If I was even modestly well off and getting taxed at 83% that's pure and simply theft, I'd feck off to another country and the UK would get nothing. The world is a free country with free movement, and if the Worlds rich ARE attracted here we are at least getting something, if they weren't here someone else would be getting the benefit of them whatever it is. This is ****ing obvious, but not apparently to the lengthy Guardian editorial that was this program. Part of tax and wealth is better than none of tax and wealth. The French recently tried some silly tax the rich approach and raised it to 75% and the well off just fecked off as was predicted, so they've dropped it again.
There IS tax competition worldwide, the program completly contradicted itself, the first part of the program was the entire premise was that they were here BECAUSE of tax competition, then he just tries to deny it exists at the end and
imply they won't go away if we change it! Our license fee is paying this idiot to push his agenda.
He went on about property, the reason for high prices is quite simply supply and demand, as explained once again just this week by a housing expert: That we are only building about half the homes per year that we should be and the pressure keeps
building as the gap between supply and demand is increasing year on year. To HIM the script was that it's always of course the fault of the rich, so that's what we got in this program. If enough houses were built, the price would drop, including those owned by the rich. It's exactly the same as oil prices. Supply and demand.
I'm not saying tax evasion shouldn't be stopped, the rich should pay a reasonable bit, and people shouldn't get a living wage etc, far from it, but this program was a biased p*ss poor pile of cr*p, the BBC should be ashamed for making something so bad.
He concludes by saying that "we were told that they would be the saviours of our economy".
WHO said that? I'm guessing NOBODY has said that, and like the entire program, he just made things up as he went along.
It was about as balanced as an extended film made by the Guardian featuring that pr*ck Owen Jones, so not at all.
It was riddled with loaded language, inaccuracies, logical fallacies, and stating many facts and conclusions that are actually just his personal opinion or made up.
I mean he throws out the fact that it would take 22 years to save 30k. Where does that completely made up figure come from?
He kept on muddling up evasion and avoidance when they are completely different things. This is basic language but he just couldn't get it right.
He even seemed to think the 83% tax rate that WAS damaging the country, was actually fine and said that dropping it to a more reasonable 60% tax, this was the government "adopting tax avoidance as a policy"!!
What an unbelievably biased and incredibly stupid thing to say, I can't believe the BBC could allow something so ridiculously biased be said. Anyone who can say anything THAT stupid has no business being a BBC journalist. Also came the
attack on Thatcher that was so predictable from minute one of the program, and the rose tinted revisionism as to the state of Britain in the 70s when taxes were very high was a complete joke.
If I was even modestly well off and getting taxed at 83% that's pure and simply theft, I'd feck off to another country and the UK would get nothing. The world is a free country with free movement, and if the Worlds rich ARE attracted here we are at least getting something, if they weren't here someone else would be getting the benefit of them whatever it is. This is ****ing obvious, but not apparently to the lengthy Guardian editorial that was this program. Part of tax and wealth is better than none of tax and wealth. The French recently tried some silly tax the rich approach and raised it to 75% and the well off just fecked off as was predicted, so they've dropped it again.
There IS tax competition worldwide, the program completly contradicted itself, the first part of the program was the entire premise was that they were here BECAUSE of tax competition, then he just tries to deny it exists at the end and
imply they won't go away if we change it! Our license fee is paying this idiot to push his agenda.
He went on about property, the reason for high prices is quite simply supply and demand, as explained once again just this week by a housing expert: That we are only building about half the homes per year that we should be and the pressure keeps
building as the gap between supply and demand is increasing year on year. To HIM the script was that it's always of course the fault of the rich, so that's what we got in this program. If enough houses were built, the price would drop, including those owned by the rich. It's exactly the same as oil prices. Supply and demand.
I'm not saying tax evasion shouldn't be stopped, the rich should pay a reasonable bit, and people shouldn't get a living wage etc, far from it, but this program was a biased p*ss poor pile of cr*p, the BBC should be ashamed for making something so bad.
He concludes by saying that "we were told that they would be the saviours of our economy".
WHO said that? I'm guessing NOBODY has said that, and like the entire program, he just made things up as he went along.
slippy
all tight ****s are vile people . I know of not ONE SINGLE PERSON who is a skinflint who is sound . They all make me wanna vomit .
all tight ****s are vile people . I know of not ONE SINGLE PERSON who is a skinflint who is sound . They all make me wanna vomit .
I'm always surprised what complete tat the rich spend their money on. I mean all that money and what are you going to do with it ? buy some gaudy jewel encrusted watch to impress some other rich tw@t. It all seems so ridiculous.
I agree with you there T&C. Even if I had £100 million I wouldn't spend more than a few hundred (if that) on a watch.
Get a nice looking one that tells the time accurately, which with modern tech is easy.
But say they buy an austin martin, they are keeping the dealer, the designers, the engineers, the builders, the mechanics, the valets, the sales staff etc in a job. If they run a learjet they are funding the pilot, the airport, airport maintenance, part suppliers and so on. To say there is no trickle down is silly, which is why he chose about the most ridiculous example he could find.
Even the woman sticking the extremely stupid gold face mask on the tw*t only has that job because there are rich people chosing to live here.
Get a nice looking one that tells the time accurately, which with modern tech is easy.
But say they buy an austin martin, they are keeping the dealer, the designers, the engineers, the builders, the mechanics, the valets, the sales staff etc in a job. If they run a learjet they are funding the pilot, the airport, airport maintenance, part suppliers and so on. To say there is no trickle down is silly, which is why he chose about the most ridiculous example he could find.
Even the woman sticking the extremely stupid gold face mask on the tw*t only has that job because there are rich people chosing to live here.
Good point. No-one needs a watch these days but if you do buy one it's keeping someone in a job.
I remember listening to a historian about 25 years ago saying that in the future you would see the rich occupying most of central London with the poor being moved out and only coming back into service the needs of the rich. Very much a return to Victorian times. Doffs cap "Fanks for the trickle down Guv"
Perhaps London should just start building at a bigger (but not too big) density. Manhattan I'm sure has affordable property, the build higher, and it's a small island.
Like the American rich guy said he can only live in so many houses wear so many pairs of trousers eat so many meals, there aint enough trickling down to sustain those beneath. And as they said its the middle class who are seeing their standard of living being eroded.
I love it when a tight tw@t dies and their kids blow the fykin lot on shyte .
Happens regular
Happens regular
some of us prefer to be skint with a tight **** to go home to every night, 
Worked with a fella who lived on cheap beans on toast for donkeys years. hated gamblers - always called it a mugs game . hes loaded but s what - hes got terminal cancer - bhes only 54
he has lived like hes been on the dole all his life . APPALLING
he has lived like hes been on the dole all his life . APPALLING
This was a very good programme, one which I thought was quite well balanced.
Just checking, I think you are almost entirely wrong about most of what you posted, you are being selective about your quotes - some of which are not quite correct either.
(just for balance)
It was nothing like a Guardian editorial. Still, easier to blame benefits scroungers for our relative poverty than the witch who set it all up and the latest pompous rich kids who persist in helping their mates, eh?
Most of what was described has seemed common sense and obvious to me for years!
If you give all the money to those who have already got loads of money, they'll just keep it - It won't get spent and circulate properly.
As for the moan by the rich (and those who imagine they are rich on here) about their potential taxes. These are crap.
If someone is at the point where they have to pay over 50% in tax.... They can easily afford it.
Most of the super rich are either very lucky, or crooked in some way, anyway. We could live without them quite easily. If they can earn more overseas let them feck off and do so. there are plenty of people who could do these "jobs" for a very good wage that doesn't affect the rest of us.
For a person earning £3 million a year (and there are plenty doing so), 100 people could earn £30,000 a year - a fairly good wage.
So the point about distorted figures is valid - the national average wage includes the money earned and accrued by the super rich.
I reckon there are far more vital cogs in our society who would be a far bigger loss, and don't hold and gather 95% of the nation's money, (dustmen, the police, teachers, train drivers etc etc).
As a matter of interest:
The 85 richest people in the world have 50% of the WORLD's money.
If 90% of the money were to be distributed among the world's population, those 85 people would STILL have more money than they could ever possibly spend and most of the whole world's problems would be solved.
Just checking, I think you are almost entirely wrong about most of what you posted, you are being selective about your quotes - some of which are not quite correct either.
(just for balance)
It was nothing like a Guardian editorial. Still, easier to blame benefits scroungers for our relative poverty than the witch who set it all up and the latest pompous rich kids who persist in helping their mates, eh?
Most of what was described has seemed common sense and obvious to me for years!
If you give all the money to those who have already got loads of money, they'll just keep it - It won't get spent and circulate properly.
As for the moan by the rich (and those who imagine they are rich on here) about their potential taxes. These are crap.
If someone is at the point where they have to pay over 50% in tax.... They can easily afford it.
Most of the super rich are either very lucky, or crooked in some way, anyway. We could live without them quite easily. If they can earn more overseas let them feck off and do so. there are plenty of people who could do these "jobs" for a very good wage that doesn't affect the rest of us.
For a person earning £3 million a year (and there are plenty doing so), 100 people could earn £30,000 a year - a fairly good wage.
So the point about distorted figures is valid - the national average wage includes the money earned and accrued by the super rich.
I reckon there are far more vital cogs in our society who would be a far bigger loss, and don't hold and gather 95% of the nation's money, (dustmen, the police, teachers, train drivers etc etc).
As a matter of interest:
The 85 richest people in the world have 50% of the WORLD's money.
If 90% of the money were to be distributed among the world's population, those 85 people would STILL have more money than they could ever possibly spend and most of the whole world's problems would be solved.
It's not about money it's about quality of life .
Rich folk generally have a superior quality of life ,but that doesn't mean that you can't have a great QOL on a mediocre sum of money .
you just need to get the balance
Rich folk generally have a superior quality of life ,but that doesn't mean that you can't have a great QOL on a mediocre sum of money .
you just need to get the balance
Studyform - i don't think redistribution of money solves anything - if the richest 85 didn't exist it would simply materialise that the very top 10% would be that much richer .
Doubt anyone on the breadline would benefit
Doubt anyone on the breadline would benefit
or top 1% maybe , perhaps we are in the top 10%
who knows,who cares really ?
who knows,who cares really ?
was a good programme , also watched the Asprey shop one
The Government seem to have engineered the whole system the American way since the 70's & now try & pretend it's not just the way they like it , London's now just a playground for Mega Rich Foreigners
It seems to me they just love to rub these programmes in the face of the poor tbh & makes me laugh the way they talk it all down , like the property guy
I mean why would they give a t0ss about anybody else , they may as well just do away with money & just trade 10k handbags with each other now
The Government seem to have engineered the whole system the American way since the 70's & now try & pretend it's not just the way they like it , London's now just a playground for Mega Rich Foreigners
It seems to me they just love to rub these programmes in the face of the poor tbh & makes me laugh the way they talk it all down , like the property guy
I mean why would they give a t0ss about anybody else , they may as well just do away with money & just trade 10k handbags with each other now
was also amusing how he was teaching them to buy a 28k sh^thole in Nottingham & they all looked kind of interested 
Studyform:
"This was a very good programme, one which I thought was quite well balanced."
LOL.
"Just checking, I think you are almost entirely wrong about most of what you posted"
LOL again.
"It was nothing like a Guardian editorial."
It was precisely like a guardian editorial, I'm amazed anyone can't see that. It was obvious from pretty much the start the way the program was going. If I was paid for my time I could watch it again and give a lengthy critique and post opposing facts from reputable sources to vast amounts of it, but it's obvious you'd take none of it on board anyway. The vast majority of the "experts" he went to were of course people he agreed with. And he didn't argue with them. The only people he actually disagreed with were the small amounts of time given to people who didn't take a guardian stlye view of things.
"Still, easier to blame benefits scroungers for our relative poverty than the witch who set it all up and the latest pompous rich kids who persist in helping their mates, eh?"
And there we have it. None of my post was along those line but that little piece of petty class warrior bile shows EXACTLY the place you were in before you sat down to watch it. I rest my case.
You liked the program because, despite the fact it WAS extremely biased, it was precisely in tune with your prejudices and reaffirmed your beliefs as they are the same beliefs as the program maker, so therefore you liked it.
The reason house prices are high is supply and demand and easy credit. The "rich" aren't holding guns to the heads of everyone bidding for a house and artificially raising the price, the price is that price because that's what the market dictates. If supply went up and the prices started falling and looked to continue, or interest rates went up and caused the same, you can bet your a**e any speculators who are out there would start selling, as they won't have got rich by being on the wrong side of a market.
If people don't undstand that .. well..
"This was a very good programme, one which I thought was quite well balanced."
LOL.
"Just checking, I think you are almost entirely wrong about most of what you posted"
LOL again.
"It was nothing like a Guardian editorial."
It was precisely like a guardian editorial, I'm amazed anyone can't see that. It was obvious from pretty much the start the way the program was going. If I was paid for my time I could watch it again and give a lengthy critique and post opposing facts from reputable sources to vast amounts of it, but it's obvious you'd take none of it on board anyway. The vast majority of the "experts" he went to were of course people he agreed with. And he didn't argue with them. The only people he actually disagreed with were the small amounts of time given to people who didn't take a guardian stlye view of things.
"Still, easier to blame benefits scroungers for our relative poverty than the witch who set it all up and the latest pompous rich kids who persist in helping their mates, eh?"
And there we have it. None of my post was along those line but that little piece of petty class warrior bile shows EXACTLY the place you were in before you sat down to watch it. I rest my case.
You liked the program because, despite the fact it WAS extremely biased, it was precisely in tune with your prejudices and reaffirmed your beliefs as they are the same beliefs as the program maker, so therefore you liked it.
The reason house prices are high is supply and demand and easy credit. The "rich" aren't holding guns to the heads of everyone bidding for a house and artificially raising the price, the price is that price because that's what the market dictates. If supply went up and the prices started falling and looked to continue, or interest rates went up and caused the same, you can bet your a**e any speculators who are out there would start selling, as they won't have got rich by being on the wrong side of a market.
If people don't undstand that .. well..
And BTW the idea of a "wealth tax" proposed in the program isn't revolutionary as other countries already have it. Unless all good countries to live in agreed to impose similar levels the rich would obviously just leave if britain started unilaterally imposing a level they weren't happy with. This is so obvious it hardly needs stating, but I doubt the program maker would point it out.
As I said, he started the program by saying the WORLDS mobile rich came here because it was attractive to them, then tried to deny they would leave it we hammered them with tax. Depsite the example in the last 2 years of the rich leaving France because of an artificial high tax. Again, the guy clearly has a left wing agenda and has no credibility. Anyone who says a govenment reducing to a still high 60% tax rate is government tax avoidance is a ****ing idiot absolutely dripping with bias, there can be no argument.
As I said, he started the program by saying the WORLDS mobile rich came here because it was attractive to them, then tried to deny they would leave it we hammered them with tax. Depsite the example in the last 2 years of the rich leaving France because of an artificial high tax. Again, the guy clearly has a left wing agenda and has no credibility. Anyone who says a govenment reducing to a still high 60% tax rate is government tax avoidance is a ****ing idiot absolutely dripping with bias, there can be no argument.
A high percentage of the money used by foreigners is bent; money they are trying to launder, hide from taxman in their country, proceeds of crime etc
They should have to prove it is legal they are before allowed to buy substantial assets.
They should have to prove it is legal they are before allowed to buy substantial assets.
You may be right leopard, in fact I don't doubt you are right with e.g. some ruskis but that's an entirely different issue.
I doubt the russians (which lets face it, it's probably their mates) would allow the UK tax people to have a look through their returns. Maybe I'm wrong but I doubt it!
And even if it IS dirty, from a purely objective viewpoint re what's good or bad for the UK, it's money that wouldn't be in the UK coming into the UK, how it was obtained isn't strictly relevant.
I doubt the russians (which lets face it, it's probably their mates) would allow the UK tax people to have a look through their returns. Maybe I'm wrong but I doubt it!
And even if it IS dirty, from a purely objective viewpoint re what's good or bad for the UK, it's money that wouldn't be in the UK coming into the UK, how it was obtained isn't strictly relevant.
A lot of rich people never spend their money. They just like to have it there for security.
Just knowing that they can have everything they want is enough for them. You can't be enjoying yourself ever minute of the day, and however high your standard of living is you soon get used to it.
Then you're back in the old routine, but with the added responsibility that having money brings.
Just knowing that they can have everything they want is enough for them. You can't be enjoying yourself ever minute of the day, and however high your standard of living is you soon get used to it.
Then you're back in the old routine, but with the added responsibility that having money brings.
We now have an increasing number of rich criminals gaining more and more control in UK.
The big problem in London is that the British are being priced out of an inflated property market....which could cause a back-lash against the foreigners.
The big problem in London is that the British are being priced out of an inflated property market....which could cause a back-lash against the foreigners.
Yes The Leopard, isn't it amazing how the British have allowed what is happening to them to continue?
We're being sent to hell in a handcart.
And the vast majority of us still see the alternative as either voting Labour or Tory.
We're being sent to hell in a handcart.
And the vast majority of us still see the alternative as either voting Labour or Tory.
London should build more safe quality good higher density housing like they have in NY etc that people really want to live in? (As opposed to crap 60s council highrises that everyone wants to get our of that get knocked down). It seems obvious I'd have thought? There is obviously a high demand to live in that area of the world, increase the supply. In NY they have high rises that are so desirable you have to be approved by the current residents to be allowed to live in them, they don't need to be crap.
Option 2 for london house prices is to reduce demand by encouraging business and thus jobs to be spread to elsewhere, e.g. that idea of a sort of linking other cities as a rival and so on.
Option 2 for london house prices is to reduce demand by encouraging business and thus jobs to be spread to elsewhere, e.g. that idea of a sort of linking other cities as a rival and so on.
Maybe it had to be this way in order to attract viewers, or at least to get made, but I found it rather a confusing mish-mash of themes, as if there were several different programmes trying to get out.
1) wealth-porn: planes, cars, watches and so on
2) non-doms who made money abroad and lived in London
3) people who made money in Britain but kept it all rather than paying thousands of employees
4) ordinary people being priced out
5) etc, etc.
1) wealth-porn: planes, cars, watches and so on
2) non-doms who made money abroad and lived in London
3) people who made money in Britain but kept it all rather than paying thousands of employees
4) ordinary people being priced out
5) etc, etc.
If you're going to be specific to london and its economy, there was a two part documentary a few months ago on the BBC that was far more professional and objective, showed every side good and bad in a balanced way.
Just Checking,
They wouldn't need all the new housing if they hadn't let so many foreigners into the country.
There's your problem - too many people.
They wouldn't need all the new housing if they hadn't let so many foreigners into the country.
There's your problem - too many people.
Well maybe/probably crippen. I'm trying to be as objective as possible here.
More people = more demand.
More demand with static supply = higher house prices.
There are other factors (more people living alone, people living longer, that's where the jobs are for resident UK people) but it'll obviously be a factor.
If other parts of the UK were more attractive, e.g. there were good jobs in Manchester/Liverpool and it was attractive to live there, people earning similar money would be rolling in it buying similar property for a fraction of the price. Immigrant or lone occupant or not.
More people = more demand.
More demand with static supply = higher house prices.
There are other factors (more people living alone, people living longer, that's where the jobs are for resident UK people) but it'll obviously be a factor.
If other parts of the UK were more attractive, e.g. there were good jobs in Manchester/Liverpool and it was attractive to live there, people earning similar money would be rolling in it buying similar property for a fraction of the price. Immigrant or lone occupant or not.
... so the question is, why aren't they moving there?
What could be done to encourage business and thus jobs to move there?
When you see the cr*pholes you can get for extortionate sums in london, if there were similar job options for those people elsewhere, where you could get a house twice the size for 2/3 the price... It's almost like it's an open door to be pushed to move jobs elsewhere.
What could be done to encourage business and thus jobs to move there?
When you see the cr*pholes you can get for extortionate sums in london, if there were similar job options for those people elsewhere, where you could get a house twice the size for 2/3 the price... It's almost like it's an open door to be pushed to move jobs elsewhere.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539