This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 14 Apr 13 2.47pm | |
---|---|
Quote newickeagle at 13 Apr 2013 10.48pm
Being a bit of a lefty, may have to agree, regrettably. Global warming, take the stage.
There are just as many scientists saying that man's input on global warming insignificant, and that the Earth heats up all on it's own. Have a look at this and stop dripping into your hemp kaftan. And while I'm in the mood, would you have just left the BRITISH Falkland Islanders to be kicked out of their homes by a hostile invasion force? You sir are a coward, sometimes, while not ideal, fighting for your beliefs is the only option, its all good turning the other cheek grasshopper, but the thing is we can all be liberal socialists until it directly affects us. Example, You have paid and worked hard for your home and belongings, a stranger turns up one day with a gun, and orders you under pain of death to fcuk off, so he can live in your house, you would expect people to be on your side wouldn't you ? some of you lefty's make me piss you really do.
"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 |
Stirlingsays 14 Apr 13 3.09pm | |
---|---|
Quote Penge Eagle at 14 Apr 2013 11.29am
Thanks for your reply Sterling. I agree that rent is high in many areas and it means people have to rent out rooms or move to cheaper areas. In many instances, it's cheaper to pay a mortgage than rent. I would say that it is mainly a London thing (there are other areas like SW England) though and rent is over valued but not so outside of the capital. I know of property parts of the north that haven't really increased in value since 2007 whereas London in the last 3 years along has seen increases. There were places like Leeds which had a massive over supply of new build flats which were left empty after the banking collapse, so rent in these types of areas are kept low. I agree the country needs affordable housing and the govt are trying a scheme next year to loan people deposits. I doubt the scheme will be very effective but we shall see. They plan to build more housing for social needs too - at the moment xx amount of new developments have to have xx amount for social. I can't remember the percentage. But the London valuations is simply down to lack of supply and the market sets the values, not landlords. And many people that cannot afford to live in zone 1 of London because of rising rents are perplexed that someone not working is able to - but that is for another thread! Yes, landlords have "taken advantage" by renting out property to local councils. But if there was no rental demand (for private and social tenants), then they wouldn't enter the market to buy property to rent out in the first place. It's all market forces again. Going back to a previous point, some of the council schemes has them managing the properties, so there is no way the landlord can be "unscrupulous". If the landlord manages the property, then I'm sure the tenant would be the first to inform the council if there are any problems regarding the landlord not doing right. Edited by Penge Eagle (14 Apr 2013 11.35am)
It illustrates where we are and that the situation could and should be fairer for everyone if we just had the right provision of affordable housing in the country that fairly matched the various wage levels we have. But for that to happen we need to have a better balance of housing supply and property prices. Those kind of things can't be achieved quickly but still we need governments of whatever hue to address problems rather than ignore them and kick them down the road for another government. Labour increased the problem by allowing the increase of the population to happen so quickly....Dim-witted or uncaring governance....Our politicians who regularly criticise our public services are probably our least effective and over paid public servants.
'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 14 Apr 13 3.13pm | |
---|---|
Renting a property out: Global warming: Yep, the earth goes in cycles of warming and cooling. This are fairly regular (in terms of thousands of years cycle) The thing is , no-one knows what the outcome will be. Edited by Forest Hillbilly (14 Apr 2013 3.15pm)
I disengage, I turn the page. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
SloveniaDave Tirana, Albania 14 Apr 13 3.13pm | |
---|---|
Quote Kermit8 at 14 Apr 2013 1.58pm
You can exploit the market without over exploiting people if one should so choose. Making as big a profit as possible at the expense of others who probably need the money a lot more than the two, three or more house owning portfolio holding landlord charging the most he or she can get away with is capitalism without a conscience.
That sounds scary, but it entirely depends on the extent of the regulation imposed. Rent caps and direct regulation of prices would not be right or effective. Tax breaks for those who rent at lower rents could work but we dont need a sledgehammer to crack a nut here. The fact that rents are more expensive than mortgages, at the moment, has far more to do with the fact that interest rates are historically very low, rather than rents being high. Edited by SloveniaDave (14 Apr 2013 3.14pm)
Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand! My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right. (Member of the School of Optimism 1969-2016 inclusive) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Penge Eagle Beckenham 14 Apr 13 3.59pm | |
---|---|
Quote nickgusset at 14 Apr 2013 12.57pm
Quote Penge Eagle at 14 Apr 2013 2.16am
Quote nickgusset at 13 Apr 2013 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)
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.
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)
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. 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. Second homes are being charged full council tax rate from this year and cannot be exempt from tax if empty, so the local councils are addressing it. There are also schemes run by councils like Bromley to get empty properties back on the market by offering grants etc. "Dodgy landlords milking the system" - how is this the case? Another throwaway comment without any substance, ie it's bollox, but fits your warped view of landlords that you read on left wing blogs cos you don't have your own opinion. If empty second homes were rented out, it wouldn't drive rent down! Are you for real? Do you realise how many thousands upon thousands of home that need to be built in London for it to even match the levels of demand required, let along keep rent levels down. Edited by Penge Eagle (14 Apr 2013 2.17am)
Trying to move the goalposts again. Your point wasn't that there are unscrupulous landlords because there are some, just like there are unscrupulous teachers, doctors, policemen. However, in your original post from the Daily Mirror, you specifically linked 'unscrupulous' landlords and social housing with profiteering etc which I'm still waiting to understand why they are. This thing about landlords an another left wing myth. Prove me wrong! Edited by Penge Eagle (14 Apr 2013 4.00pm)
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator |
Penge Eagle Beckenham 14 Apr 13 4.14pm | |
---|---|
Quote Kermit8 at 14 Apr 2013 1.58pm
You can exploit the market without over exploiting people if one should so choose. Making as big a profit as possible at the expense of others who probably need the money a lot more than the two, three or more house owning portfolio holding landlord charging the most he or she can get away with is capitalism without a conscience. Edited by Kermit8 (14 Apr 2013 2.02pm) More tosh. How can you exploit the market exactly? How do you know landlords make a big profit"? The ones that do pay taxes on profits and also capital gains and stamp duty plus plus generate business for tradesmen, high street letting agents, etc etc. How about the landlords who make big losses? You make a generalisation that simply does not stand up or makes any sense. Without landlords letting property to people on Local Housing Allowance, these people would be living in overcrowded hostels or on the streets. The lack of housing stock is not the fault of the landlord! There are many landlords who have a social conscience that provide safe, decent accommodation for tenants. But you choose to ignore that possibility to fit your hatred of landlords. And there are plenty of regulations in place - notably the tenancy deposit scheme - but property let to councils are strongly regulated by the councils themselves.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator |
JohnyBoy 14 Apr 13 4.45pm | |
---|---|
Well said Jamiemartin Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Apr 2013 10.58pm
Quote chris123 at 13 Apr 2013 9.37pm
Quote newickeagle at 13 Apr 2013 9.33pm
Chris, how many people went to their death in the South Atlantic and particularly on the Belgrano? She stuck herself in a pseudo tank to celebrate and they were in their early years. 87 is a good innings, she didn't allow that to her victims. How does it feel to be the Mother of a 1000 dead?
No we were in a conflict. The UK specifically didn't declare war, and the Belgrano was sunk outside the exclusion zone, on executive order of the prime minister - It was of course the right decision. But she did celebrate the victory, which is the celebration of others deaths, most of whom were young kids conscripted by a facist regime that murdered and tortured its own people. Those kids, what choice did they have. It might have had to be done, it might even have been of benefit to argentina (as the Junta collapsed soon after). Nothing really to celebrate there. 649 Argentinans died along with 3 Falkland Islanders and 255 British Service men. Ironically more service men from the Falklands would die by their own hand in the coming decade after the war, than were killed by enemy fire - largely down to the Conservative parties dismantling of the British Mental Health system.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Kermit8 Hevon 14 Apr 13 4.59pm | |
---|---|
Quote Penge Eagle at 14 Apr 2013 4.14pm
Quote Kermit8 at 14 Apr 2013 1.58pm
You can exploit the market without over exploiting people if one should so choose. Making as big a profit as possible at the expense of others who probably need the money a lot more than the two, three or more house owning portfolio holding landlord charging the most he or she can get away with is capitalism without a conscience. Edited by Kermit8 (14 Apr 2013 2.02pm) More tosh. How can you exploit the market exactly? How do you know landlords make a big profit"? The ones that do pay taxes on profits and also capital gains and stamp duty plus plus generate business for tradesmen, high street letting agents, etc etc. How about the landlords who make big losses? You make a generalisation that simply does not stand up or makes any sense. Without landlords letting property to people on Local Housing Allowance, these people would be living in overcrowded hostels or on the streets. The lack of housing stock is not the fault of the landlord! There are many landlords who have a social conscience that provide safe, decent accommodation for tenants. But you choose to ignore that possibility to fit your hatred of landlords. And there are plenty of regulations in place - notably the tenancy deposit scheme - but property let to councils are strongly regulated by the councils themselves.
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stirlingsays 14 Apr 13 5.09pm | |
---|---|
Quote JohnyBoy at 14 Apr 2013 4.45pm
Well said Jamiemartin What a load of old tosh. We sank a boat containing soldiers that had been in and out of the exclusion zone all day. If you've been doing that you are fair game while tacking back and forth....They weren't there by accident. Soldiers aren't lawyers, if you don't want to risk death you stay away from the killing zone, it's quite simple. Their commanders were playing dice with the lives of their troops. The responsibility for those conscripts' death lies at the feet of their own commanders. After this sinking the Argentinian navy stayed in its port. You don't repulse invasions by blowing the enemy a kiss. If the enemy turns up in the theatre you hit them. That's whether they are hanging around the edges or not. Edited by Stirlingsays (14 Apr 2013 5.30pm)
'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 14 Apr 13 5.19pm | |
---|---|
Quote Stirlingsays at 14 Apr 2013 5.09pm
Quote JohnyBoy at 14 Apr 2013 4.45pm
Well said Jamiemartin What a load of old tosh.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Kermit8 Hevon 14 Apr 13 5.28pm | |
---|---|
Quote SloveniaDave at 14 Apr 2013 3.13pm
Quote Kermit8 at 14 Apr 2013 1.58pm
You can exploit the market without over exploiting people if one should so choose. Making as big a profit as possible at the expense of others who probably need the money a lot more than the two, three or more house owning portfolio holding landlord charging the most he or she can get away with is capitalism without a conscience.
That sounds scary, but it entirely depends on the extent of the regulation imposed. Rent caps and direct regulation of prices would not be right or effective. Tax breaks for those who rent at lower rents could work but we dont need a sledgehammer to crack a nut here. The fact that rents are more expensive than mortgages, at the moment, has far more to do with the fact that interest rates are historically very low, rather than rents being high. Edited by SloveniaDave (14 Apr 2013 3.14pm)
£6,500 per month to rent. Not quite a salubrious penthouse in SW1, is it? Someone is raking it in. That's taking the pIss. People will pay it because they have to or have no significant options. It's out of control. Literally. Edited by Kermit8 (14 Apr 2013 6.20pm)
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 14 Apr 13 5.31pm | |
---|---|
6500 a month, a feckin month !!!!! That is taking the right piss
"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 |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.