Margaret Thatcher

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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

Margaret Thatcher

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 87 of 126 < 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 >

The Sash Now residing in Epsom - How Posh 13 Apr 13 2.58pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Apr 2013 12.52pm Quote nickgusset at 13 Apr 2013 10.20am Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Apr 2013 10.15am Quote Penge Eagle at 12 Apr 2013 8.41pm 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 specialising in the provision of low end rent housing are subsidised by the state through housing benefit. They're benefit scroungers sucking on the teets of the state (if you wanted to write it as the mail would for people who claim housing benefit). Of course there is a minority of unscrupulous and exploitive landlords - Just like there are a minority of benefit scrounger scum. The right seem to be very happy with the tar brush when it suits them. Sheriff Fatman? [Link] Crystal Palace fans - So they can't be wrong!! 50% right Jimbob was a Millwall IIRC As far as the rules go, it's a website not a democracy - Hambo 3/6/2014
Alert a moderator to this post

The Sash

Now residing in Epsom - How Posh 13 Apr 13 2.58pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Apr 2013 12.52pm

Quote nickgusset at 13 Apr 2013 10.20am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Apr 2013 10.15am

Quote Penge Eagle at 12 Apr 2013 8.41pm
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 specialising in the provision of low end rent housing are subsidised by the state through housing benefit.

They're benefit scroungers sucking on the teets of the state (if you wanted to write it as the mail would for people who claim housing benefit).

Of course there is a minority of unscrupulous and exploitive landlords - Just like there are a minority of benefit scrounger scum. The right seem to be very happy with the tar brush when it suits them.

Sheriff Fatman?

[Link]

Crystal Palace fans - So they can't be wrong!!

50% right

Jimbob was a Millwall IIRC

As far as the rules go, it's a website not a democracy - Hambo 3/6/2014

Alert a moderator to this post

Penge Eagle Beckenham 13 Apr 13 3.06pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Apr 2013 10.15am Quote Penge Eagle at 12 Apr 2013 8.41pm 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 specialising in the provision of low end rent housing are subsidised by the state through housing benefit. They're benefit scroungers sucking on the teets of the state (if you wanted to write it as the mail would for people who claim housing benefit). Of course there is a minority of unscrupulous and exploitive landlords - Just like there are a minority of benefit scrounger scum. The right seem to be very happy with the tar brush when it suits them. To compare landlords who rent to councils and welfare claimants is some kind of joke?? Have you worked out how the landlord came into possession of a property in the first place or wondered about the risks and costs involved?? The difference is there is regulation to tackle unscrupulous landlords which end with fines and possibly prison sentences. Unscrupulous welfare claimants are a strain on MY MONEY that I contribute to tax. That is the key.
Alert a moderator to this post \| Board Moderator

Penge Eagle

Beckenham 13 Apr 13 3.06pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Apr 2013 10.15am

Quote Penge Eagle at 12 Apr 2013 8.41pm
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 specialising in the provision of low end rent housing are subsidised by the state through housing benefit.

They're benefit scroungers sucking on the teets of the state (if you wanted to write it as the mail would for people who claim housing benefit).

To compare landlords who rent to councils and welfare claimants is some kind of joke?? Have you worked out how the landlord came into possession of a property in the first place or wondered about the risks and costs involved??

The difference is there is regulation to tackle unscrupulous landlords which end with fines and possibly prison sentences.

Unscrupulous welfare claimants are a strain on MY MONEY that I contribute to tax. That is the key.

Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator

Penge Eagle Beckenham 13 Apr 13 3.10pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 13 Apr 2013 11.13am Quote chris123 at 13 Apr 2013 4.36am Of course there's a choice - move somewhere cheaper. I can't afford to live in Knightsbridge which would be dead handy for work, so I rent in Caterham and commute. There's always a choice. By 'choice' you mean you are forced to. Landlord rents are generally ridiculous. Compared to council rent levels they are not cheap. Also these 'cheaper' areas don't number anything like enough. Edited by Stirlingsays (13 Apr 2013 11.21am) Can you explain expand on this? Cheap for who?
Alert a moderator to this post \| Board Moderator

Penge Eagle

Beckenham 13 Apr 13 3.10pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 13 Apr 2013 11.13am

Quote chris123 at 13 Apr 2013 4.36am

Of course there's a choice - move somewhere cheaper. I can't afford to live in Knightsbridge which would be dead handy for work, so I rent in Caterham and commute. There's always a choice.

By 'choice' you mean you are forced to.

Landlord rents are generally ridiculous. Compared to council rent levels they are not cheap. Also these 'cheaper' areas don't number anything like enough.

Edited by Stirlingsays (13 Apr 2013 11.21am)

Can you explain expand on this? Cheap for who?

Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator

Stirlingsays 13 Apr 13 3.19pm
Quote Penge Eagle at 13 Apr 2013 3.10pm Quote Stirlingsays at 13 Apr 2013 11.13am Quote chris123 at 13 Apr 2013 4.36am Of course there's a choice - move somewhere cheaper. I can't afford to live in Knightsbridge which would be dead handy for work, so I rent in Caterham and commute. There's always a choice. By 'choice' you mean you are forced to. Landlord rents are generally ridiculous. Compared to council rent levels they are not cheap. Also these 'cheaper' areas don't number anything like enough. Edited by Stirlingsays (13 Apr 2013 11.21am) Can you explain expand on this? Cheap for who? Could you expand upon your question? I've said landlord rent isn't cheap.....'Cheap for who' doesn't really give me a lot to know what you're getting at. '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

Stirlingsays

13 Apr 13 3.19pm

Quote Penge Eagle at 13 Apr 2013 3.10pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 13 Apr 2013 11.13am

Quote chris123 at 13 Apr 2013 4.36am

Of course there's a choice - move somewhere cheaper. I can't afford to live in Knightsbridge which would be dead handy for work, so I rent in Caterham and commute. There's always a choice.

By 'choice' you mean you are forced to.

Landlord rents are generally ridiculous. Compared to council rent levels they are not cheap. Also these 'cheaper' areas don't number anything like enough.

Edited by Stirlingsays (13 Apr 2013 11.21am)

Can you explain expand on this? Cheap for who?

Could you expand upon your question? I've said landlord rent isn't cheap.....'Cheap for who' doesn't really give me a lot to know what you're getting at.

'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 13 Apr 13 3.36pm
Quote Penge Eagle at 13 Apr 2013 2.55pm 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) I was merelysharing the Daily Mirrors story, I haven't read what Owen Jones wrote, although he did touch upon housing benefit being paid directly to unscrupulous landlords (not into the pockets of the inhabitants) during his excellent speech at the NUT conference. 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) I was paraphrasing, not saying word for word. Landlords are profiting out of your taxes, did you know that the son of the housing minister at the time of the council house sell off has a portfolio of over 40 ex council houses? "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? 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. Rents have increased by 36% in the last few years- now whether this is partly because landlords know they are onto a good thing because they know they have a guaranteed income from benefit tenants is debatable but not unlikely-I know there are other reasons, supply/demand etc-(a hangover from the original sold off housing stock not being replaced) 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) I'm glad you had overnight to research your point since. You say: "However the rent they are charging is way above what the council rent would have been." Landlords do not get paid any more letting out to the local council as they would a private individual. In fact, many council schemes give the landlord LESS money but tie to a rental guarantee scheme and the landlord has to spend more money to bring it up to council standards. It doesn't affect the tenant as the rent is still covered. OBVIOUSLY, if the council owned the property themselves then it would be cheaper for them instead of renting off a landlord. But that is not the landlord's fault!! It's down to a shortage of housing stock after Maggie (rightly) enabled people to buy their council home and the social housing was not replaced by her or in the 30 years since by Labour governments. Coupled with a rising population and more divorces that makes supply even more scare. It's got nothing to do with landlords renting out accommodation. The rent is market value! Anyway, you could argue that a council paying a landlord rent works out much cheaper than the cost of building and maintaining thousands of homes in the medium term. I find it incredible that you are concerned about value for money for the tax payer all of a sudden! Only when a private individual has the opportunity to earn some money, then it's not fair! You forget that many landlords don't make any money or have lost thousands - so they are not all "profiteering". Many don't like the fact tenants get the housing because tenants have run off with the money or trashed the place. From a moral perspective, only genuine cases should get housing benefit and the frauds should not which should in turn free up cash for fixing the potholes etc. The landlords are irrelevant as they are simply providing a service. Edited by Penge Eagle (13 Apr 2013 2.57pm) Overnight? check the time of my post. The market value of rents is high due to a lack of social housing. Although it must be said there's a fair few thousand second homes that lay empty. If I had my way, unless 2nd homes were rented out rather than laying empty, the owners should be taxed to the hilt. Same with holiday homes that lay empty for half the year. If these were rented out it would drive rents down. As for my sudden concern for the tax payer! I've always been concerned for the tax payer, I want value for my taxes. At the moment I'm not getting it, especially as rents are so high, ergo housing benefit payments are higher. There are dodgy landlords milking the system, just as there are honest ones making a living. From a moral perspective, I think you should focus your ire on tax dodgers and avoiders. They rob the system of far more money than benefit fraudsters.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 13 Apr 13 3.36pm

Quote Penge Eagle at 13 Apr 2013 2.55pm

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)

I was merelysharing the Daily Mirrors story, I haven't read what Owen Jones wrote, although he did touch upon housing benefit being paid directly to unscrupulous landlords (not into the pockets of the inhabitants) during his excellent speech at the NUT conference.

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)

I was paraphrasing, not saying word for word.
Landlords are profiting out of your taxes, did you know that the son of the housing minister at the time of the council house sell off has a portfolio of over 40 ex council houses?

"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?

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.
Rents have increased by 36% in the last few years- now whether this is partly because landlords know they are onto a good thing because they know they have a guaranteed income from benefit tenants is debatable but not unlikely-I know there are other reasons, supply/demand etc-(a hangover from the original sold off housing stock not being replaced)

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)

I'm glad you had overnight to research your point since.

You say: "However the rent they are charging is way above what the council rent would have been."

Landlords do not get paid any more letting out to the local council as they would a private individual. In fact, many council schemes give the landlord LESS money but tie to a rental guarantee scheme and the landlord has to spend more money to bring it up to council standards.

It doesn't affect the tenant as the rent is still covered.

OBVIOUSLY, if the council owned the property themselves then it would be cheaper for them instead of renting off a landlord.

But that is not the landlord's fault!!

It's down to a shortage of housing stock after Maggie (rightly) enabled people to buy their council home and the social housing was not replaced by her or in the 30 years since by Labour governments. Coupled with a rising population and more divorces that makes supply even more scare. It's got nothing to do with landlords renting out accommodation.

The rent is market value!

Anyway, you could argue that a council paying a landlord rent works out much cheaper than the cost of building and maintaining thousands of homes in the medium term.

I find it incredible that you are concerned about value for money for the tax payer all of a sudden! Only when a private individual has the opportunity to earn some money, then it's not fair! You forget that many landlords don't make any money or have lost thousands - so they are not all "profiteering". Many don't like the fact tenants get the housing because tenants have run off with the money or trashed the place.

From a moral perspective, only genuine cases should get housing benefit and the frauds should not which should in turn free up cash for fixing the potholes etc. The landlords are irrelevant as they are simply providing a service.

Edited by Penge Eagle (13 Apr 2013 2.57pm)

Overnight? check the time of my post.

The market value of rents is high due to a lack of social housing. Although it must be said there's a fair few thousand second homes that lay empty. If I had my way, unless 2nd homes were rented out rather than laying empty, the owners should be taxed to the hilt. Same with holiday homes that lay empty for half the year. If these were rented out it would drive rents down.

As for my sudden concern for the tax payer! I've always been concerned for the tax payer, I want value for my taxes. At the moment I'm not getting it, especially as rents are so high, ergo housing benefit payments are higher.
There are dodgy landlords milking the system, just as there are honest ones making a living.

From a moral perspective, I think you should focus your ire on tax dodgers and avoiders. They rob the system of far more money than benefit fraudsters.

Alert a moderator to this post

Forest Hillbilly in a hidey-hole 13 Apr 13 3.57pm
^^^^ nice curve lack of housing is a problem. The declining birthrate means that this lack of (social)housing can be attributed to the increase in single people (due to some people marrying later), but also due to the higher divorce rate and immigation. i work on housing projects for my job. My experience is that developers will fight tooth and nail to keep 'affordable' housing to a minimum on any developments. (although developers are obliged to provide a percentage, set by the Local Authority) There are still people out there with money who want to invest in property. This has made it extremely difficult for first-time buyers to get on the property ladder with banks unwilling to loan at the present time to higher-risk people. This means a proportionate increase of people are forced to rent , instead of buying. Therefore some landlord will be setting high rentals in areas lacking in housing. My former flat in Forest Hill is currently being rented out to a couple for a larger monthly amount than we were paying for our mortgage. Doesn't seem fair to me I disengage, I turn the page.
Alert a moderator to this post

Forest Hillbilly

in a hidey-hole 13 Apr 13 3.57pm

Send a Private Message to Forest Hillbilly

^^^^

nice curve

lack of housing is a problem. The declining birthrate means that this lack of (social)housing can be attributed to the increase in single people (due to some people marrying later), but also due to the higher divorce rate and immigation.

i work on housing projects for my job. My experience is that developers will fight tooth and nail to keep 'affordable' housing to a minimum on any developments. (although developers are obliged to provide a percentage, set by the Local Authority)

There are still people out there with money who want to invest in property. This has made it extremely difficult for first-time buyers to get on the property ladder with banks unwilling to loan at the present time to higher-risk people.

This means a proportionate increase of people are forced to rent , instead of buying. Therefore some landlord will be setting high rentals in areas lacking in housing.

My former flat in Forest Hill is currently being rented out to a couple for a larger monthly amount than we were paying for our mortgage. Doesn't seem fair to me

I disengage, I turn the page.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 13 Apr 13 4.09pm
Quote Penge Eagle at 13 Apr 2013 2.55pm It's down to a shortage of housing stock after Maggie (rightly) enabled people to buy their council home and the social housing was not replaced by her or in the 30 years since by Labour governments. Coupled with a rising population and more divorces that makes supply even more scare. It's got nothing to do with landlords renting out accommodation. The rent is market value! Edited by Penge Eagle (13 Apr 2013 2.59pm) How was it right for Thatcher to allow the selling of council houses if she wasn't going to replace the lost social housing stock? I don't know of anyone who in principle objects to buying council homes if it's linked into them being replaced. However, selling council houses without replacing the stock was and is wrong. I regard myself as a Tory/Ukip but if it's wrong....And it was....For Labour not to replace sold social housing why isn't it wrong for Thatcher not to replace them? The reason they didn't replace them was and is blindingly clear......The cost of building social housing and maintaining them is expensive.....A significant majority of the people filling these homes are needy and not significant earners or just housing benefit payers so the inducement isn't particularly high for the market sector neither. The policy to sell was a short term vote winner....But long term is has impacted upon many. It appears from your observations landlords much prefer not having those on benefits in their homes....A certain percentage of them are going to be trouble. Edited by Stirlingsays (13 Apr 2013 4.15pm) '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

Stirlingsays

13 Apr 13 4.09pm

Quote Penge Eagle at 13 Apr 2013 2.55pm

The rent is market value!

Edited by Penge Eagle (13 Apr 2013 2.59pm)

How was it right for Thatcher to allow the selling of council houses if she wasn't going to replace the lost social housing stock?

I don't know of anyone who in principle objects to buying council homes if it's linked into them being replaced.
However, selling council houses without replacing the stock was and is wrong.

I regard myself as a Tory/Ukip but if it's wrong....And it was....For Labour not to replace sold social housing why isn't it wrong for Thatcher not to replace them?

The reason they didn't replace them was and is blindingly clear......The cost of building social housing and maintaining them is expensive.....A significant majority of the people filling these homes are needy and not significant earners or just housing benefit payers so the inducement isn't particularly high for the market sector neither.

The policy to sell was a short term vote winner....But long term is has impacted upon many.

It appears from your observations landlords much prefer not having those on benefits in their homes....A certain percentage of them are going to be trouble.

Edited by Stirlingsays (13 Apr 2013 4.15pm)

'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

Forest Hillbilly in a hidey-hole 13 Apr 13 4.28pm
replacing housing stock is expensive for a couple of reasons. Property has always been a good/safe investment, in the longer term. Sure, you get occasional fluctuations, but property (generally speaking) is a good investment. Not just becuase of the building (a lot of big houses in London have been converted into flats), but because land value is tied into the investment also. That is why Local Authorities are trying to stop people who own properties with large gardens, selling part of their garden to developers.(see attachment) So getting the land in the right areas is a big problem for replacing Council house stock because it's going to cost a lot more that they sold their old stock for. Building costs have risen because building standards have improved and there are now environmental considerations. Meanwhile some houses in my village remain empty because they are used as either holiday rentals or as second homes for the wealthy, who only occasionally drop by. This deprives our local community of revenue, in the form of monies spent at the local shops and pubs. I'm sure i heard quite recently that Cameron was going to tax the fck out of second homes to try and combat this situation. Fingers crossed Edited by Forest Hillbilly (13 Apr 2013 4.30pm) I disengage, I turn the page.
Alert a moderator to this post

Forest Hillbilly

in a hidey-hole 13 Apr 13 4.28pm

replacing housing stock is expensive for a couple of reasons.
Property has always been a good/safe investment, in the longer term. Sure, you get occasional fluctuations, but property (generally speaking) is a good investment.
Not just becuase of the building (a lot of big houses in London have been converted into flats), but because land value is tied into the investment also.
That is why Local Authorities are trying to stop people who own properties with large gardens, selling part of their garden to developers.(see attachment)

So getting the land in the right areas is a big problem for replacing Council house stock because it's going to cost a lot more that they sold their old stock for.
Building costs have risen because building standards have improved and there are now environmental considerations.

Meanwhile some houses in my village remain empty because they are used as either holiday rentals or as second homes for the wealthy, who only occasionally drop by.
This deprives our local community of revenue, in the form of monies spent at the local shops and pubs.

I'm sure i heard quite recently that Cameron was going to tax the fck out of second homes to try and combat this situation. Fingers crossed

Edited by Forest Hillbilly (13 Apr 2013 4.30pm)

I disengage, I turn the page.

Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself Matataland 13 Apr 13 8.40pm
This is an amusing, albeit incredibly biased, read but which does partially illustrate the reality of the utopia that the Chiselhurst Martyrs are fighting for. [Link] "That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02
Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself

Matataland 13 Apr 13 8.40pm

This is an amusing, albeit incredibly biased, read but which does partially illustrate the reality of the utopia that the Chiselhurst Martyrs are fighting for.

[Link]

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

Alert a moderator to this post

newickeagle Newick, E Sussex 13 Apr 13 8.50pm
Forest, Cameron tax second home owners? Irrespective of the rights and wrongs, never! Isn't the problem with social/council housing that they were all sold off and the Local Authorities not allowed to invest the proceeds in new housing of this nature. Or am I a raging commie?!!
Alert a moderator to this post

newickeagle

Newick, E Sussex 13 Apr 13 8.50pm

Forest, Cameron tax second home owners? Irrespective of the rights and wrongs, never!

Isn't the problem with social/council housing that they were all sold off and the Local Authorities not allowed to invest the proceeds in new housing of this nature.

Or am I a raging commie?!!

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 13 Apr 13 8.53pm
Quote matt_himself at 13 Apr 2013 8.40pm This is an amusing, albeit incredibly biased, read but which does partially illustrate the reality of the utopia that the Chiselhurst Martyrs are fighting for. [Link] Shatire at it's worst.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 13 Apr 13 8.53pm

Quote matt_himself at 13 Apr 2013 8.40pm

This is an amusing, albeit incredibly biased, read but which does partially illustrate the reality of the utopia that the Chiselhurst Martyrs are fighting for.

[Link]

Shatire at it's worst.

Alert a moderator to this post

Forest Hillbilly in a hidey-hole 13 Apr 13 8.58pm
You are quite correct newickeagle. To balance selling the public assets debate, although the tories sold BT, gas, council homes, railways, introduced toll roads etc. I still feel huge resentment to the bumbling unelected former PM, who when was a Chancellor, sold a load of 'our' gold at rock bottom prices. Brown, you're a disgrace to the Labour party. But what does Brown care ? he's got a shlt-hot ring-fenced pension ? cunces are everywhere Edited by Forest Hillbilly (13 Apr 2013 8.59pm) I disengage, I turn the page.
Alert a moderator to this post

Forest Hillbilly

in a hidey-hole 13 Apr 13 8.58pm

You are quite correct newickeagle.

To balance selling the public assets debate, although the tories sold BT, gas, council homes, railways, introduced toll roads etc. I still feel huge resentment to the bumbling unelected former PM, who when was a Chancellor, sold a load of 'our' gold at rock bottom prices. Brown, you're a disgrace to the Labour party.
But what does Brown care ? he's got a shlt-hot ring-fenced pension ?

cunces are everywhere

Edited by Forest Hillbilly (13 Apr 2013 8.59pm)

I disengage, I turn the page.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 87 of 126 < 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Margaret Thatcher

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors