This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Margaret Thatcher
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Stirlingsays  12 Apr 13 10.31pm |
   |
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 12 Apr 2013 10.22pm
I don't have a problem with landlords per se. One and a half million council houses were sold off at up to 50% of their value. 1/3 of these houses are now owned by private landlords, fair play to private landlords if that is their way of making money. However the rent they are charging is way above what the council rent would have been. In the vast majority of cases, the houses are being rented back to people who would have, had there been enough, been renting off of the council. As tax payers, we are paying a lot of the (now inflated when compared to council)rent through housing benefit. So as tax payers, we are paying a great deal more to support those who need housing benefit in order to provide a profit for individuals rather than to a council who could use the money for other projects-building more houses, fixing the facking pothole in the road, keeping libraries open etc etc. That is where my beef lies.
It's a valid beef in my view. However it's a beef that White Horse refuses to accept when he attacked over Labour's three terms of doing bugger all about housing. Collectively both parties let large sections of the country down over social housing.....Building houses is expensive, doesn't have a short term payback and there's always something else more pressing to do. That's politicians for you - being paid to f*ck the country up and then blame the other lot.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| chris123 hove actually 12 Apr 13 10.32pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Bubbs at 12 Apr 2013 10.22pm
Quote Forest Hillbilly at 12 Apr 2013 9.34pm
You can never 'win' an internet argument/discussion, lively and interesting as they are. People are already entrenched into their viewpoints and have a wealth of 'supporting evidence' to back their stance. i would like to feel i have been educated by this thread. Particularly relating to the miners strike. *I have learnt of how shlt Labour were before the Tories got in. The miners weren't shirkers. They wanted to work, and in fvcking shlt conditions, too. (unlike a significant % of today's population) The souring after-taste for these ex-workers, is that many people, government, investors, bankers, property magnates (including Union leaders) got massive financial rewards, for fundamentally doing fck-all.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| chris123 hove actually 12 Apr 13 10.43pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 12 Apr 2013 10.22pm
Quote chris123 at 12 Apr 2013 9.15pm
Quote Penge Eagle at 12 Apr 2013 9.05pm
Quote nickgusset at 12 Apr 2013 9.02pm
Quote Penge Eagle at 12 Apr 2013 8.41pm
Quote nickgusset at 12 Apr 2013 7.27pm
Quote Penge Eagle at 12 Apr 2013 5.22pm
Quote nickgusset at 12 Apr 2013 12.29am
WhiteHorse hasn't been on for a while, was he really a senile Thatch? I notice in the Daily Mirror that of all the council homes sold off, one third are being rented out by private landlords...Probably for a lot more than council rent would cost!!! Edited by nickgusset (12 Apr 2013 12.31am) Again, you are simply parroting what the likes of Owen Jones says. Please explain in a bit more detail how landlords are profiteering or the "Probably for a lot more than council rent would cost!" bit. I asked Owen Jones about this through twitter and he didn't get back to me, funnily enough! Edited by Penge Eagle (12 Apr 2013 5.23pm)
If you repeat anything in a paper, may I accuse you of 'parroting' Littlejohn. Once again Penge, you resort to personal digs rather than countering the argument. Do you have evidence against the fact that a third of sold off council houses are owned by private landlords? If you do, I'd be more than happy to read it. Sorry Nick, I fail to see any personal insult there. Why are you quoting a story to score points without being aware of the facts of the actual story? I said you [in the case of this Mirror link] and "the likes of Owen Jones" as I've heard it so many times before and it's rubbish. By you quoting that Mirror story, you clearly agree with it. "Greedy landlords" is regularly trotted out by left wing commentators and politicians. I am really interested to know how landlords who provide a service for the population profiteer on vulnerable people or are unscrupulousness. I genuinely don't understand your point about landlords. Is it because they earn money and are therefore evil? I'm not arguing over housing stock, but the issue about landlords. For your information, housing benefit IS paid directly to the tenant unless they ask otherwise. Owen Jones said different at the NUT jolly, so it must be true? You are parroting what he said. Edited by Penge Eagle (12 Apr 2013 8.49pm)
"Landlords are profiting out of your taxes". I just don't understand what is wrong with that? The State gives money to the private sector all of the time... Do you have a problem with landlords? Edited by Penge Eagle (12 Apr 2013 9.07pm Landlord's are inherently risk takers. We have had two major property slumps in my memory. In the SE property prices may be fairly stable at the moment, but elsewhere they are not. If you are prepared to invest, take on risk and provide a service, what is wrong with those that get right making a profit?
One and a half million council houses were sold off at up to 50% of their value. 1/3 of these houses are now owned by private landlords, fair play to private landlords if that is their way of making money. However the rent they are charging is way above what the council rent would have been. In the vast majority of cases, the houses are being rented back to people who would have, had there been enough, been renting off of the council. As tax payers, we are paying a lot of the (now inflated when compared to council)rent through housing benefit. So as tax payers, we are paying a great deal more to support those who need housing benefit in order to provide a profit for individuals rather than to a council who could use the money for other projects-building more houses, fixing the facking pothole in the road, keeping libraries open etc etc. That is where my beef lies.
Edited by nickgusset (12 Apr 2013 10.24pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Willo South coast - west of Brighton. 12 Apr 13 10.53pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Seth at 12 Apr 2013 6.15pm
That hotbed of rabid communism and anti-Tory bias, the BBC, has decided not to play Ding Dong the Witch is Dead on the Radio 1 chart show. What do those who regularly attack the Beeb for being rampant lefties think of this blatant piece of Tory-appeasing censorship? The very nadir of radio coverage came on Tuesday evening when the BBC unearthed some chap who had been promoting the song. This was in appallingly bad taste to give airtime to someone capable of promoting such a song about a woman who had died the previous day.This poison should have been kept off the airwaves. Disgusting and repugnant.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 12 Apr 13 10.57pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote chris123 at 12 Apr 2013 10.43pm
Giving council tenents the right to buy their homes and create some security of tenure is surely a good thing. The discount to market was on a sliding scale depending on the number of years you'd occupied your property. Council houses were not sold to landlords, landlords have purchased ex council stock on the open market, they were generally very well built. Of course rents have increased in some areas, that's the market working, creating choice.
If landlords now own around 1/3 of original social housing that is a valid point to make. It doesn't show 'choice' it shows an abuse of the original intent of social housing insomuch as it was intended to be affordable. One of the main reasons social housing was created was because the market aren't driven by providing what is affordable but only in making the most money. This means that if there are enough people willing to pay a rent then that's good enough.....This isn't providing 'choice' to those who can't afford it. What you call 'choice' for many is no choice at all. Edited by Stirlingsays (12 Apr 2013 11.02pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 12 Apr 13 10.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stirlingsays at 12 Apr 2013 10.31pm
Quote nickgusset at 12 Apr 2013 10.22pm
I don't have a problem with landlords per se. One and a half million council houses were sold off at up to 50% of their value. 1/3 of these houses are now owned by private landlords, fair play to private landlords if that is their way of making money. However the rent they are charging is way above what the council rent would have been. In the vast majority of cases, the houses are being rented back to people who would have, had there been enough, been renting off of the council. As tax payers, we are paying a lot of the (now inflated when compared to council)rent through housing benefit. So as tax payers, we are paying a great deal more to support those who need housing benefit in order to provide a profit for individuals rather than to a council who could use the money for other projects-building more houses, fixing the facking pothole in the road, keeping libraries open etc etc. That is where my beef lies.
It's a valid beef in my view. However it's a beef that White Horse refuses to accept when he attacked over Labour's three terms of doing bugger all about housing. Collectively both parties let large sections of the country down over social housing.....Building houses is expensive, doesn't have a short term payback and there's always something else more pressing to do. That's politicians for you - being paid to f*ck the country up and then blame the other lot.
A hypothetical idea-sorry if it is a bit simplistic... Currently the rate of interest for the government to borrow on a 15 year loan is 2.43%. Therefore, it would cost the government £24.3 million a year in repayments if it borrowed £1bn. In the north west, new homes for social housing cost about £120,000 to build. With £1bn you could build 8,330 houses. If the rent for each house was set at about £5,500 a year (affordable) then the total income would be £45.8m per year, a surplus of £21.5m on the repayments. Over 15 years, this would amount to a surplus of around £322m. Of course you have to take inflation into account, say 2% a year - the £1bn would devalue by 2% a year meaning after 15 years the original loan of £1bn would actually be worth about 30% less than it is today. So we would repay the equivalent of about £666m. Of course people are needed to build the houses, this will take people off of benefits, If the average amount of benefits is £100 a week (jsa and housing benefit) it amounts to £5200 a year. If the same person were to earn an average wage of £22k a year building the houses, then they would pay around £3500 Tax and NI a year. So the public purse will make a gain of about £8700 a year from that person who is not receiving benefit and paying taxes. Multiply this by the number of people taken off benefits to build the houses (say 500 for arguments sake) and you now have £4.35m a year into the public purse. Of course with more money, these people will buy more goods and services which means more tax paid. Additionally, you would have companies supplying the goods and contracts to build the houses, their profits would increase with additional corporation tax to pay. So not only do we get people off of benefits and into work, we save on benefits and generate more tax but we also go some way to solving the housing crisis, especially if this model is repeated around the country. Edited by nickgusset (12 Apr 2013 11.02pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 12 Apr 13 10.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Willo at 12 Apr 2013 10.53pm
Quote Seth at 12 Apr 2013 6.15pm
That hotbed of rabid communism and anti-Tory bias, the BBC, has decided not to play Ding Dong the Witch is Dead on the Radio 1 chart show. What do those who regularly attack the Beeb for being rampant lefties think of this blatant piece of Tory-appeasing censorship? The very nadir of radio coverage came on Tuesday evening when the BBC unearthed some chap who had been promoting the song. This was in appallingly bad taste to give airtime to someone capable of promoting such a song about a woman who had died the previous day.This poison should have been kept off the airwaves. Disgusting and repugnant.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Jimenez  SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 12 Apr 13 11.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 12 Apr 2013 10.58pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 12 Apr 2013 10.31pm
Quote nickgusset at 12 Apr 2013 10.22pm
I don't have a problem with landlords per se. One and a half million council houses were sold off at up to 50% of their value. 1/3 of these houses are now owned by private landlords, fair play to private landlords if that is their way of making money. However the rent they are charging is way above what the council rent would have been. In the vast majority of cases, the houses are being rented back to people who would have, had there been enough, been renting off of the council. As tax payers, we are paying a lot of the (now inflated when compared to council)rent through housing benefit. So as tax payers, we are paying a great deal more to support those who need housing benefit in order to provide a profit for individuals rather than to a council who could use the money for other projects-building more houses, fixing the facking pothole in the road, keeping libraries open etc etc. That is where my beef lies.
It's a valid beef in my view. However it's a beef that White Horse refuses to accept when he attacked over Labour's three terms of doing bugger all about housing. Collectively both parties let large sections of the country down over social housing.....Building houses is expensive, doesn't have a short term payback and there's always something else more pressing to do. That's politicians for you - being paid to f*ck the country up and then blame the other lot.
A hypothetical idea-sorry if it is a bit simplistic... Currently the rate of interest for the government to borrow on a 15 year loan is 2.43%. Therefore, it would cost the government £24.3 million a year in repayments if it borrowed £1bn. In the north west, new homes for social housing cost about £120,000 to build. With £1bn you could build 8,330 houses. If the rent for each house was set at about £5,500 a year (affordable) then the total income would be £45.8m per year, a surplus of £21.5m on the repayments. Over 15 years, this would amount to a surplus of around £322m. Of course you have to take inflation into account, say 2% a year - the £1bn would devalue by 2% a year meaning after 15 years the original loan of £1bn would actually be worth about 30% less than it is today. So we would repay the equivalent of about £666m. Of course people are needed to build the houses, this will take people off of benefits, If the average amount of benefits is £100 a week (jsa and housing benefit) it amounts to £5200 a year. If the same person were to earn an average wage of £22k a year building the houses, then they would pay around £3500 Tax and NI a year. So the public purse will make a gain of about £8700 a year from that person who is not receiving benefit and paying taxes. Multiply this by the number of people taken off benefits to build the houses (say 500 for arguments sake) and you now have £4.35m a year into the public purse. Of course with more money, these people will buy more goods and services which means more tax paid. Additionally, you would have companies supplying the goods and contracts to build the houses, their profits would increase with additional corporation tax to pay. So not only do we get people off of benefits and into work, we save on benefits and generate more tax but we also go some way to solving the housing crisis, especially if this model is repeated around the country. 440 Quid a week seriously? as a Carpenter myself I was earning this back in the 80s shopfitting. Double that & I may consider It.. Edited by nickgusset (12 Apr 2013 11.02pm)
Pro USA & Israel |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 12 Apr 13 11.21pm |
|
|---|---|
|
440 Quid a week working as a Carpenter back in the 80s? Jesus.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Jimenez SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 12 Apr 13 11.38pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stirlingsays at 12 Apr 2013 11.21pm
440 Quid a week working as a Carpenter back in the 80s? Jesus.
Pro USA & Israel |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| chris123 hove actually 12 Apr 13 11.39pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stirlingsays at 12 Apr 2013 10.57pm
Quote chris123 at 12 Apr 2013 10.43pm
Giving council tenents the right to buy their homes and create some security of tenure is surely a good thing. The discount to market was on a sliding scale depending on the number of years you'd occupied your property. Council houses were not sold to landlords, landlords have purchased ex council stock on the open market, they were generally very well built. Of course rents have increased in some areas, that's the market working, creating choice.
If landlords now own around 1/3 of original social housing that is a valid point to make. It doesn't show 'choice' it shows an abuse of the original intent of social housing insomuch as it was intended to be affordable. One of the main reasons social housing was created was because the market aren't driven by providing what is affordable but only in making the most money. This means that if there are enough people willing to pay a rent then that's good enough.....This isn't providing 'choice' to those who can't afford it. What you call 'choice' for many is no choice at all. Edited by Stirlingsays (12 Apr 2013 11.02pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 13 Apr 13 12.29am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote chris123 at 12 Apr 2013 11.39pm
It has to be affordable, otherwise you'd have a bunch of empty properties. If you're a landlord it's difficult to see how you can be successful marketing a suite of properties at unaffordable rents. If you have a set number of properties then you can charge the rate the market will bear to fill those properties. If there isn't enough houses the basic demand and supply means the rate is higher. The market isn't there to house everyone, that isn't its role. It has a set number of properties (which isn't enough to house everyone) and the market is going to make as much money as it can. This is a key reason why we had government build social housing in the first place and not the market.....The market aren't interested in housing everyone...At the lower end the profit is too low to risk the expensive outlay to build the property.....Much more profit in chasing the better earners. This isn't 'choice' for a large number of people who don't earn enough.....This is no choice.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.