Right to rent

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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

Right to rent

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 8 of 9 < 4 5 6 7 8 9 >

Tom-the-eagle Croydon 03 Mar 19 4.18pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Surely all profit is at someone's expense. Earlier I suggested that landlords were greedy. That might have been unfair on some. Is it not reasonable to invest in property if it pays better than the the interest rate? And would it then not be a reasonable option to rent that property out if you could be bothered with the hassle? Fair play Hrolf. "It feels much better than it ever did, much more sensitive." John Wayne Bobbit
Alert a moderator to this post

Tom-the-eagle

Croydon 03 Mar 19 4.18pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Surely all profit is at someone's expense.

Earlier I suggested that landlords were greedy. That might have been unfair on some.

Is it not reasonable to invest in property if it pays better than the the interest rate?
And would it then not be a reasonable option to rent that property out if you could be bothered with the hassle?

Fair play Hrolf.

"It feels much better than it ever did, much more sensitive." John Wayne Bobbit

Alert a moderator to this post

Pussay Patrol 03 Mar 19 4.32pm
Originally posted by Tom-the-eagle Expand on this? what exactly should trickle down and how? This is just a throwaway comment without meaning. The idea that the wealthiest at the top create wealth for those lower down the chain. There is not enough regulation to ensure better redistribution of wealth If you look at the housing market for example, people at the bottom forced into paying high rents and property owners taking advantage of the situation so the wealth is being sucked upwards. More government regulation and taxation is needed to redress that imbalance Paua oouaarancì Irà chiyeah Ishé galé ma ba oo ah
Alert a moderator to this post

Pussay Patrol

03 Mar 19 4.32pm

Originally posted by Tom-the-eagle

Expand on this? what exactly should trickle down and how?

This is just a throwaway comment without meaning.

The idea that the wealthiest at the top create wealth for those lower down the chain.

There is not enough regulation to ensure better redistribution of wealth

If you look at the housing market for example, people at the bottom forced into paying high rents and property owners taking advantage of the situation so the wealth is being sucked upwards. More government regulation and taxation is needed to redress that imbalance

Paua oouaarancì Irà chiyeah Ishé galé ma ba oo ah

Alert a moderator to this post

Tom-the-eagle Croydon 03 Mar 19 5.00pm
Originally posted by Pussay Patrol The idea that the wealthiest at the top create wealth for those lower down the chain. There is not enough regulation to ensure better redistribution of wealth If you look at the housing market for example, people at the bottom forced into paying high rents and property owners taking advantage of the situation so the wealth is being sucked upwards. More government regulation and taxation is needed to redress that imbalance If someone has worked their ass off for years, been frugal with their spending and disciplined with their saving, and have saved enough to put down a deposit on a buy-to-let property which brings them a couple of hundred pounds a month after taxes, then why should they then have to redistribute this money back down to someone else? Success rewards those who work hard and invest. "It feels much better than it ever did, much more sensitive." John Wayne Bobbit
Alert a moderator to this post

Tom-the-eagle

Croydon 03 Mar 19 5.00pm

Originally posted by Pussay Patrol

The idea that the wealthiest at the top create wealth for those lower down the chain.

There is not enough regulation to ensure better redistribution of wealth

If someone has worked their ass off for years, been frugal with their spending and disciplined with their saving, and have saved enough to put down a deposit on a buy-to-let property which brings them a couple of hundred pounds a month after taxes, then why should they then have to redistribute this money back down to someone else?

Success rewards those who work hard and invest.

"It feels much better than it ever did, much more sensitive." John Wayne Bobbit

Alert a moderator to this post

dannyboy1978 03 Mar 19 5.07pm
Originally posted by Pussay Patrol The idea that the wealthiest at the top create wealth for those lower down the chain. There is not enough regulation to ensure better redistribution of wealth If you look at the housing market for example, people at the bottom forced into paying high rents and property owners taking advantage of the situation so the wealth is being sucked upwards. More government regulation and taxation is needed to redress that imbalance The imbalance is to many people not enough houses. Its Governments fault not land lords. Your just The typical left who hate success and people who do well. Have you heard of the Phrase it's only worth what somone is willing to pay? Edited by dannyboy1978 (03 Mar 2019 5.13pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

dannyboy1978

03 Mar 19 5.07pm

Originally posted by Pussay Patrol

The idea that the wealthiest at the top create wealth for those lower down the chain.

There is not enough regulation to ensure better redistribution of wealth

The imbalance is to many people not enough houses. Its Governments fault not land lords.
Your just The typical left who hate success and people who do well. Have you heard of the
Phrase it's only worth what somone is willing to pay?

Edited by dannyboy1978 (03 Mar 2019 5.13pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst The garden of England 03 Mar 19 5.23pm
Originally posted by Pussay Patrol Logical thought process house prices are out of control and unaffordable for a person on average earnings. People shouldn't make money from property, if they want to invest in a property which they pass down to their kids fine, but not to increase their wealth. If someone's making money another person is suffering so you have to redress the balance. Tax earnings on 2nd properties and use that to fund help to buy schemes What if the kids don’t want to live there or already have a property then? I suppose the state has it and invests in ......... I can guess under Labour
Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst

The garden of England 03 Mar 19 5.23pm

Originally posted by Pussay Patrol

Logical thought process

house prices are out of control and unaffordable for a person on average earnings.

People shouldn't make money from property, if they want to invest in a property which they pass down to their kids fine, but not to increase their wealth. If someone's making money another person is suffering so you have to redress the balance.

Tax earnings on 2nd properties and use that to fund help to buy schemes

What if the kids don’t want to live there or already have a property then?
I suppose the state has it and invests in .........
I can guess under Labour

Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst The garden of England 03 Mar 19 5.31pm
Originally posted by Pussay Patrol so because you don't have a pension you are using the property market or more to the point other people's income's at the bottom of the ladder to subsidise that? and what sustains the strength in the value of your property empire is the fact those people can't afford to buy them? I don't believe in a have and have not system where the haves make money out of the have nots. I would mkae the haves give back so it's more balanced I also don't think because a young family cannot afford a new house and get turned down for a mortgage and are at the mercy of the high rental market is envy Edited by Pussay Patrol (03 Mar 2019 11.58am) Wealth envy again. What about the 2 billion benefit fraud being clawed back and given to the have nots How about the fact that my tax pounds go to a pension for someone who does f*** all through life but take. Many many people start life in the same place. Some get rich Some don’t Some forever feel that they ‘deserve’ just because. I’ve been at the bottom when repossessed so I know what it’s like. But hey I got off my butt and now 8 years from owning my home. You can come to try to take it to distribute the profits but It will get messy.
Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst

The garden of England 03 Mar 19 5.31pm

Originally posted by Pussay Patrol

so because you don't have a pension you are using the property market or more to the point other people's income's at the bottom of the ladder to subsidise that? and what sustains the strength in the value of your property empire is the fact those people can't afford to buy them?

I don't believe in a have and have not system where the haves make money out of the have nots. I would mkae the haves give back so it's more balanced

I also don't think because a young family cannot afford a new house and get turned down for a mortgage and are at the mercy of the high rental market is envy

Edited by Pussay Patrol (03 Mar 2019 11.58am)

Wealth envy again.
What about the 2 billion benefit fraud being clawed back and given to the have nots
How about the fact that my tax pounds go to a pension for someone who does f*** all through life but take.
Many many people start life in the same place.
Some get rich
Some don’t
Some forever feel that they ‘deserve’ just because.
I’ve been at the bottom when repossessed so I know what it’s like.
But hey I got off my butt and now 8 years from owning my home.
You can come to try to take it to distribute the profits but It will get messy.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 03 Mar 19 5.31pm
Originally posted by Pussay Patrol Too much trickle up when there should be more trickle down I agree that the trickle down could trickle some more but there has never been a more successful system. We have a welfare state and the vast majority of people are doing ok. We should all be doing better but when you consider how it has been in the past, things aren't too bad. Enjoy your luck. In 200 years or so, this planet will have so many people on it that it will make today seem like paradise.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

03 Mar 19 5.31pm

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by Pussay Patrol

Too much trickle up when there should be more trickle down

I agree that the trickle down could trickle some more but there has never been a more successful system.

We have a welfare state and the vast majority of people are doing ok.
We should all be doing better but when you consider how it has been in the past, things aren't too bad.

Enjoy your luck. In 200 years or so, this planet will have so many people on it that it will make today seem like paradise.

Alert a moderator to this post

Pussay Patrol 03 Mar 19 6.06pm
Originally posted by Tom-the-eagle If someone has worked their ass off for years, been frugal with their spending and disciplined with their saving, and have saved enough to put down a deposit on a buy-to-let property which brings them a couple of hundred pounds a month after taxes, then why should they then have to redistribute this money back down to someone else? Success rewards those who work hard and invest. but Property shouldn't be investment vehicles, how people earned their money is neither here nor there Paua oouaarancì Irà chiyeah Ishé galé ma ba oo ah
Alert a moderator to this post

Pussay Patrol

03 Mar 19 6.06pm

Originally posted by Tom-the-eagle

Success rewards those who work hard and invest.

but Property shouldn't be investment vehicles, how people earned their money is neither here nor there

Paua oouaarancì Irà chiyeah Ishé galé ma ba oo ah

Alert a moderator to this post

dannyboy1978 03 Mar 19 6.13pm
Originally posted by Pussay Patrol but Property shouldn't be investment vehicles, how people earned their money is neither here nor there Us brits are only doing what Europeans are doing, you know, that lot you love and do everything so well. [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

dannyboy1978

03 Mar 19 6.13pm

Originally posted by Pussay Patrol

but Property shouldn't be investment vehicles, how people earned their money is neither here nor there

Us brits are only doing what Europeans are doing, you know, that lot you love and do everything so well.

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

YT Oxford 03 Mar 19 6.16pm
Originally posted by Pussay Patrol but Property shouldn't be investment vehicles, how people earned their money is neither here nor there Eh? Property is a massive global investment vehicle. Owned by pension funds, insurance companies...even trade unions! Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)
Alert a moderator to this post

Oxford 03 Mar 19 6.16pm

Originally posted by Pussay Patrol

but Property shouldn't be investment vehicles, how people earned their money is neither here nor there

Eh? Property is a massive global investment vehicle. Owned by pension funds, insurance companies...even trade unions!

Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)

Alert a moderator to this post

steeleye20 Croydon 03 Mar 19 6.23pm
Originally posted by YT Eh? Property is a massive global investment vehicle. Owned by pension funds, insurance companies...even trade unions! Well, with that lot, you're making Pussay's point very well !!!!!!!!!!
Alert a moderator to this post

steeleye20

Croydon 03 Mar 19 6.23pm

Originally posted by YT

Eh? Property is a massive global investment vehicle. Owned by pension funds, insurance companies...even trade unions!

Well, with that lot, you're making Pussay's point very well !!!!!!!!!!

Alert a moderator to this post

YT Oxford 03 Mar 19 6.40pm
Originally posted by steeleye20 Well, with that lot, you're making Pussay's point very well !!!!!!!!!! Why? I work for a pension fund that is tasked with paying a retirement income to 118,000 current and former employees of a key industry and their dependants. Many of the employees are or were trade union members, 'ordinary workers' and most likely Labour voters. What do YOU suggest that the pension fund should invest in, without the diversification that property offers? Try to answer without being flippant, if you are capable of doing so. Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)
Alert a moderator to this post

Oxford 03 Mar 19 6.40pm

Originally posted by steeleye20

Well, with that lot, you're making Pussay's point very well !!!!!!!!!!

Why?

I work for a pension fund that is tasked with paying a retirement income to 118,000 current and former employees of a key industry and their dependants. Many of the employees are or were trade union members, 'ordinary workers' and most likely Labour voters. What do YOU suggest that the pension fund should invest in, without the diversification that property offers? Try to answer without being flippant, if you are capable of doing so.

Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 8 of 9 < 4 5 6 7 8 9 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Right to rent

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors