More lunacy from the left

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

More lunacy from the left

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 13 of 14 < 9 10 11 12 13 14 >

jamiemartin721 Reading 27 Apr 16 1.11pm
Originally posted by We are goin up! Wrong. Every time you interfere with the market, there are unintended consequences that mean that the masses become less satisfied. Take a couple of examples with housing: Increase in Stamp Duty/Increased tax on rental profits on Buy to Let properties: Sounds great in a paper to bash BTL landlords. Unintended consequence is that rents go through the roof as a result. I work in the mortgage industry, the ONLY way that landlords can get a mortgage is if they put their rent up. It's not them being evil, it's so they can borrow. Increased rents make it harder for the tenant to save a deposit Help to Buy scheme giving interest free loans on new builds: Sounds great, doesn't it? Give out loads of really cheap mortgages to First Time Buyers providing they're new build. What's happened in reality is that these apartments are way, way overpriced. Mark my words, in five years' time these apartments will be dime a dozen and loads of property owners will be in negative equity. Leave the market alone. It works. It really doesn't when a two bedroomed house is upwards of 250-300k in a s**ty area, or a one bedroomed flat is 800 a month. I don't generally think people should automatically be entitled to own their own property, but they are entitled to live somewhere that is affordable and reasonable. Failure to regulate the housing and landlord markets have led us into a major problem. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 27 Apr 16 1.11pm

Originally posted by We are goin up!

Wrong.

Every time you interfere with the market, there are unintended consequences that mean that the masses become less satisfied. Take a couple of examples with housing:

Increase in Stamp Duty/Increased tax on rental profits on Buy to Let properties: Sounds great in a paper to bash BTL landlords. Unintended consequence is that rents go through the roof as a result. I work in the mortgage industry, the ONLY way that landlords can get a mortgage is if they put their rent up. It's not them being evil, it's so they can borrow. Increased rents make it harder for the tenant to save a deposit

Help to Buy scheme giving interest free loans on new builds: Sounds great, doesn't it? Give out loads of really cheap mortgages to First Time Buyers providing they're new build. What's happened in reality is that these apartments are way, way overpriced. Mark my words, in five years' time these apartments will be dime a dozen and loads of property owners will be in negative equity.

Leave the market alone. It works.

It really doesn't when a two bedroomed house is upwards of 250-300k in a s**ty area, or a one bedroomed flat is 800 a month.

I don't generally think people should automatically be entitled to own their own property, but they are entitled to live somewhere that is affordable and reasonable.

Failure to regulate the housing and landlord markets have led us into a major problem.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 27 Apr 16 1.36pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Because there isn't really a viable alternative except for them to be living on the streets and squatting, which ultimately would create a far bigger social problems. The question for me is why is the market rate for rent unregulated and uncontrolled, given that accommodation/shelter is an essential need. The problem is that housing benefit is effectively a state subsidy of private landlords and investments - much of which has been overlooked for decades in tax legislation (such as people being able to sell houses they've rented out in the past, that they probably didn't pay corporation tax or income tax on, and then sold without having to pay capital gains levied on the property). Probably because those people rapidly in the 80s became the key voters in swing constituencies. In extreme cases, that's possible. However, social housing doesn't merely comprise the flotsam and jetsam of humanity - the overwhelming majority of council and housing association tenants are (and always have been) just ordinary, average people working and earning and are no different to those who mysteriously don't qualify although their circumstances are just the same. So, I ask again, why should these people benefit from state-subsidised rents when so many others don't? Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham
Alert a moderator to this post

Cucking Funt

Clapham on the Back 27 Apr 16 1.36pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Because there isn't really a viable alternative except for them to be living on the streets and squatting, which ultimately would create a far bigger social problems.

The question for me is why is the market rate for rent unregulated and uncontrolled, given that accommodation/shelter is an essential need.

The problem is that housing benefit is effectively a state subsidy of private landlords and investments - much of which has been overlooked for decades in tax legislation (such as people being able to sell houses they've rented out in the past, that they probably didn't pay corporation tax or income tax on, and then sold without having to pay capital gains levied on the property).

Probably because those people rapidly in the 80s became the key voters in swing constituencies.

In extreme cases, that's possible. However, social housing doesn't merely comprise the flotsam and jetsam of humanity - the overwhelming majority of council and housing association tenants are (and always have been) just ordinary, average people working and earning and are no different to those who mysteriously don't qualify although their circumstances are just the same. So, I ask again, why should these people benefit from state-subsidised rents when so many others don't?

Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham

Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk Top half 27 Apr 16 1.45pm
Originally posted by Mapletree Poor b******s have got no water or electricity and now Jamie wants to deny them decent suitable housing. Optimistic as ever
Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk

Top half 27 Apr 16 1.45pm

Originally posted by Mapletree

Poor b******s have got no water or electricity and now Jamie wants to deny them decent suitable housing.

Optimistic as ever

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 27 Apr 16 3.56pm
Originally posted by Cucking Funt In extreme cases, that's possible. However, social housing doesn't merely comprise the flotsam and jetsam of humanity - the overwhelming majority of council and housing association tenants are (and always have been) just ordinary, average people working and earning and are no different to those who mysteriously don't qualify although their circumstances are just the same. So, I ask again, why should these people benefit from state-subsidised rents when so many others don't? Ultimately, I think we need to revisit the idea of council housing, where it was plentiful. For me, the obligation of the state in response to citizens is to establish as basis of meeting all needs. Council Housing in my memory, was available to anyone on 'the housing list', not just entitled to benefits - The idea that housing benefit it not available to low income workers helps create the kind of trap where people choose not to work, because economically they're more secure on benefits, than in low paid work. I'd have no problem with the idea of everyone having a reasonable access to state subsidised housing up to a certain level and that the private market would cater to those who want 'something a bit more swish' or to own their own property. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 27 Apr 16 3.56pm

Originally posted by Cucking Funt

Ultimately, I think we need to revisit the idea of council housing, where it was plentiful. For me, the obligation of the state in response to citizens is to establish as basis of meeting all needs.

Council Housing in my memory, was available to anyone on 'the housing list', not just entitled to benefits - The idea that housing benefit it not available to low income workers helps create the kind of trap where people choose not to work, because economically they're more secure on benefits, than in low paid work.

I'd have no problem with the idea of everyone having a reasonable access to state subsidised housing up to a certain level and that the private market would cater to those who want 'something a bit more swish' or to own their own property.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

johnfirewall 27 Apr 16 4.55pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 I'd have no problem with the idea of everyone having a reasonable access to state subsidised housing up to a certain level and that the private market would cater to those who want 'something a bit more swish' or to own their own property. The thing is, in London especially, social and affordable properties are the very same new builds owned by occupiers or foreign investors. Along with those which housing associations are allowed to let at the market rate (which in itself supports the high rental value). This ultimately means none are on the market. Of course Maggie allowed the sale of the original council stock, but that would have had the benefit of helping integration between classes. In light of the left's disinterest in 'ghettoisation' (let's be honest, they only ever protest when posh people move in to an area which has been sh1t for centuries) would we really be creating problems if some new blocks were given soley to social tennants?
Alert a moderator to this post

johnfirewall

27 Apr 16 4.55pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

The thing is, in London especially, social and affordable properties are the very same new builds owned by occupiers or foreign investors. Along with those which housing associations are allowed to let at the market rate (which in itself supports the high rental value). This ultimately means none are on the market.

Of course Maggie allowed the sale of the original council stock, but that would have had the benefit of helping integration between classes. In light of the left's disinterest in 'ghettoisation' (let's be honest, they only ever protest when posh people move in to an area which has been sh1t for centuries) would we really be creating problems if some new blocks were given soley to social tennants?

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 28 Apr 16 9.47am
Absolutely, the key here is to establish a reasonable basis by which rents are either reflected in the cost of living (and the minimum wage) or controlling the price of rented property (even if that means the state creating rented property). 'Affordable properties to buy' aren't a solution as that serves to only get a few people on to the housing ladder and ultimately just sustains the situation. The state has a duty to citizens, whether they are working or unemployed, to provide essential functional needs such as accommodation, water, food and 'safety' at the fundamental basis of the idea of governance is the 'provision of essential needs of existance'. When I was a little kid, prior to the council housing sell off, people who worked also tended to live in council properties (in fact both sets of my grand parents worked and lived in council housing). "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 28 Apr 16 9.47am

Absolutely, the key here is to establish a reasonable basis by which rents are either reflected in the cost of living (and the minimum wage) or controlling the price of rented property (even if that means the state creating rented property).

'Affordable properties to buy' aren't a solution as that serves to only get a few people on to the housing ladder and ultimately just sustains the situation.

The state has a duty to citizens, whether they are working or unemployed, to provide essential functional needs such as accommodation, water, food and 'safety' at the fundamental basis of the idea of governance is the 'provision of essential needs of existance'.

When I was a little kid, prior to the council housing sell off, people who worked also tended to live in council properties (in fact both sets of my grand parents worked and lived in council housing).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 28 Apr 16 9.59am
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Absolutely, the key here is to establish a reasonable basis by which rents are either reflected in the cost of living (and the minimum wage) or controlling the price of rented property (even if that means the state creating rented property). 'Affordable properties to buy' aren't a solution as that serves to only get a few people on to the housing ladder and ultimately just sustains the situation. The state has a duty to citizens, whether they are working or unemployed, to provide essential functional needs such as accommodation, water, food and 'safety' at the fundamental basis of the idea of governance is the 'provision of essential needs of existance'. When I was a little kid, prior to the council housing sell off, people who worked also tended to live in council properties (in fact both sets of my grand parents worked and lived in council housing). Owning a home does seem to be less of a priority across Europe. Any reasons why it seems to be a British obsession?
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 28 Apr 16 9.59am

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

'Affordable properties to buy' aren't a solution as that serves to only get a few people on to the housing ladder and ultimately just sustains the situation.

Owning a home does seem to be less of a priority across Europe. Any reasons why it seems to be a British obsession?

Alert a moderator to this post

dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 28 Apr 16 12.40pm
Originally posted by nickgusset Owning a home does seem to be less of a priority across Europe. Any reasons why it seems to be a British obsession? Well I have lived in Germany and spent time in France and they in general have the same desire to own there own homes as we do, the obvious exception being the major metropolitan centres of each country, but thats the same in the UK anyway. The Germans have a system where by you can buy nice big 6 bedroom properties with own grounds etc, but the mortgage is over 150 years, and is passed down through each generation, so each generation pays less for the mortgage, and thehome is kept in the family for generation after generation, then when the house is paid off, they couple who own it at the time sell it and start again. Seems sensible to me. "It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"
Alert a moderator to this post

dannyh

wherever I lay my hat....... 28 Apr 16 12.40pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

Owning a home does seem to be less of a priority across Europe. Any reasons why it seems to be a British obsession?

Well I have lived in Germany and spent time in France and they in general have the same desire to own there own homes as we do, the obvious exception being the major metropolitan centres of each country, but thats the same in the UK anyway.

The Germans have a system where by you can buy nice big 6 bedroom properties with own grounds etc, but the mortgage is over 150 years, and is passed down through each generation, so each generation pays less for the mortgage, and thehome is kept in the family for generation after generation, then when the house is paid off, they couple who own it at the time sell it and start again.

Seems sensible to me.

"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 28 Apr 16 1.00pm
Originally posted by nickgusset Owning a home does seem to be less of a priority across Europe. Any reasons why it seems to be a British obsession? I think its a fairly modern concept the idea of owning property, that's grown out of the housing boom and the selling off of tied and council properties. Initially I think in the UK, the profits and gains made during the initial bubbled fuelled the desire to own property and as rents have increased significantly, it makes sense to a degree, that if you're paying roughly the same each month, you might as well be owning the property in the end (as its a sweet asset worth significant money and a pretty safe basis of investment). I think everyone generally wants to own their own home, even people who rent, because it makes sense that spending when faced with paying 800 a month on rent, or 1000 a month on a mortgage, then you'd want to own your own house; especially given that the asset will at the very least hold its value. If it was 200 a month for rent, or 800 a month for a mortgage people would probably be less driven towards owning their own home "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 28 Apr 16 1.00pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

Owning a home does seem to be less of a priority across Europe. Any reasons why it seems to be a British obsession?

I think its a fairly modern concept the idea of owning property, that's grown out of the housing boom and the selling off of tied and council properties.

Initially I think in the UK, the profits and gains made during the initial bubbled fuelled the desire to own property and as rents have increased significantly, it makes sense to a degree, that if you're paying roughly the same each month, you might as well be owning the property in the end (as its a sweet asset worth significant money and a pretty safe basis of investment).

I think everyone generally wants to own their own home, even people who rent, because it makes sense that spending when faced with paying 800 a month on rent, or 1000 a month on a mortgage, then you'd want to own your own house; especially given that the asset will at the very least hold its value.

If it was 200 a month for rent, or 800 a month for a mortgage people would probably be less driven towards owning their own home

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

johnfirewall 28 Apr 16 1.44pm
Originally posted by nickgusset Owning a home does seem to be less of a priority across Europe. Any reasons why it seems to be a British obsession? The Dutch are the biggest renters but they also wear shoes made of wood. Is this a genuine question? I'd say the purchase to rental ratio is probably greater on the continent. It is the left's pet complaint, although I admire the martydom of paying 75% of your wages to live in Clapham. Edited by johnfirewall (28 Apr 2016 1.50pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

johnfirewall

28 Apr 16 1.44pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

Owning a home does seem to be less of a priority across Europe. Any reasons why it seems to be a British obsession?

The Dutch are the biggest renters but they also wear shoes made of wood.

Is this a genuine question?

I'd say the purchase to rental ratio is probably greater on the continent.

It is the left's pet complaint, although I admire the martydom of paying 75% of your wages to live in Clapham.

Edited by johnfirewall (28 Apr 2016 1.50pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Superfly The sun always shines in Catford 28 Apr 16 1.53pm
Originally posted by johnfirewall The Dan's are the biggest renters Edited by johnfirewall (28 Apr 2016 1.50pm) EFA Lend me a Tenor 31 May to 3 June 2017 John McIntosh Arts Centre London Oratory School SW6 1RX with Superfly in the chorus [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Superfly

The sun always shines in Catford 28 Apr 16 1.53pm

Originally posted by johnfirewall

The Dan's are the biggest renters
Edited by johnfirewall (28 Apr 2016 1.50pm)

EFA

Lend me a Tenor

31 May to 3 June 2017

John McIntosh Arts Centre
London Oratory School
SW6 1RX

with Superfly in the chorus
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

npn Crowborough 28 Apr 16 2.08pm
Originally posted by nickgusset Owning a home does seem to be less of a priority across Europe. Any reasons why it seems to be a British obsession? Not so much an obsession as prudent economics surely? If you are paying 500 in rent today, chances are you'll be paying 600 in 10 years, 700 in 20, and so on. With a mortgage, that 500 (or even 600) stays at that level for, typically, 25 years, then ceases altogether. For me, that's part of my retirement planning - no longer needing to pay a mortgage. Even if the house were eventually reclaimed on your death, I'd still think it a decent investment just for those final few years of rent/mortgage freedom and more disposable cash! Speaking as someone who got their first mortgage 28 years ago, and with now only 7 years to go, if I could speak to my 21 year old self, I'd be inclined to say "well played, son (oh, and don't get involved with that German bird, it will all end in tears and poverty)"
Alert a moderator to this post

npn

Crowborough 28 Apr 16 2.08pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

Owning a home does seem to be less of a priority across Europe. Any reasons why it seems to be a British obsession?

Not so much an obsession as prudent economics surely?
If you are paying 500 in rent today, chances are you'll be paying 600 in 10 years, 700 in 20, and so on. With a mortgage, that 500 (or even 600) stays at that level for, typically, 25 years, then ceases altogether. For me, that's part of my retirement planning - no longer needing to pay a mortgage.

Even if the house were eventually reclaimed on your death, I'd still think it a decent investment just for those final few years of rent/mortgage freedom and more disposable cash!

Speaking as someone who got their first mortgage 28 years ago, and with now only 7 years to go, if I could speak to my 21 year old self, I'd be inclined to say "well played, son (oh, and don't get involved with that German bird, it will all end in tears and poverty)"

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 13 of 14 < 9 10 11 12 13 14 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

More lunacy from the left

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors