You are here: Home > Message Board > Gold Talk > Margaret Thatcher
November 23 2024 12.29am

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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 93 of 126 < 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 >

  

dannyh Flag wherever I lay my hat....... 14 Apr 13 2.47pm Send a Private Message to dannyh Add dannyh as a friend

Quote newickeagle at 13 Apr 2013 10.48pm

Being a bit of a lefty, may have to agree, regrettably. Global warming, take the stage.


Ahhh another socialist scare tactic, the great global warming farce, tell me do you have a window, open it and have a look, it's still cold and raining in the south west and we had more snow this year than any other.

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.

[Link]

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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Stirlingsays Flag 14 Apr 13 3.09pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

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)


An informative and honest reply, thank you.

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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Forest Hillbilly Flag in a hidey-hole 14 Apr 13 3.13pm Send a Private Message to Forest Hillbilly Add Forest Hillbilly as a friend

Renting a property out:
Yes, it is risk-laden. You can minimilise risk by using a letting agent (for a cost). High risk properties tend to be 'affordable' properties for tennants, so the Landlord has to factor in long-term benefits.

Global warming: Yep, the earth goes in cycles of warming and cooling. This are fairly regular (in terms of thousands of years cycle)
However, since the dawn of the industrial revolution, we have seen a marked acceleration of global warming, which makes previous cycles look like shallow dips/rises.
The planet is already at the peak of previous warming cycles, at warp-speed, and there is no sign of any slow-down

The thing is , no-one knows what the outcome will be.
Have we endevoured to cut emissions too late ?
Does Earth have an 'auto-recover' feature ?
Is it all bullshlte, and does anyone really care. ?

Edited by Forest Hillbilly (14 Apr 2013 3.15pm)

 


I disengage, I turn the page.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
SloveniaDave Flag Tirana, Albania 14 Apr 13 3.13pm Send a Private Message to SloveniaDave Add SloveniaDave as a friend

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.
Nothing more and nothing less. And it should be regulated.


Edited by Kermit8 (14 Apr 2013 2.02pm)

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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Penge Eagle Flag Beckenham 14 Apr 13 3.59pm Send a Private Message to Penge Eagle Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Penge Eagle as a friend

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)


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.

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)


I do have my own opinion!
Are you saying that there are NO unscrupulous landlords?

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 Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Penge Eagle Flag Beckenham 14 Apr 13 4.14pm Send a Private Message to Penge Eagle Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Penge Eagle as a friend

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.
Nothing more and nothing less. And it should be regulated.

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 Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
JohnyBoy Flag 14 Apr 13 4.45pm Send a Private Message to JohnyBoy Add JohnyBoy as a friend

Well said Jamiemartin
I have to say, it astounds me the level of ignorance that I have been reading about this.
As Jamiemartin said we were not actually at war with Argentina over the Falklands, neither country declared war as this brings with it a number of international obligations, Thatcher merely said that she was sending a task force south to reclaim the islands 'by force if necessary.' However this, as she knew full well, also obliged her to adhere to certain rules i.e. international law, maritime law and the Geneva convention - all updated after WW2 to protect conflicts from spreading, to protect civilians and prisoners - believe me we should all believe that governments adhere by these rules. One of those updated requirements was to set up a 'sphere of conflict' which in the case of the Falklands was a 200 mile exclusion zone. (in Iraq it was a no fly zone around certain defined parallels).
The Belgrano was sunk 36 miles outside the exclusion zone by a nuclear submarine on direct orders from the UK Government, although its precise co-ordinates had been disclosed
This was reported to MPs 3 years later by Clive Ponting who was subsequently charged with a breach of the Official secrets act.
That the sinking took place 14 hours after a peace deal was announced by Peru (although Thatcher said she didn't receive it hmmmm...) is largely irrelevant as it was a breach of international law and the conventions of warfare in itself.
Technically she cant be charged with a war crime because Britain were not technically at war but she can be charged with an atrocity. The likelihood of this is however negligible given that the UK has a permanent veto on the security council that governs the UN tribunal.
For the record I was in favour of the Falklands being reclaimed (and indeed the Iraq war with certain amendments) but I cannot agree with a war crime or deliberate atrocity - and I am baffled that there are some whipped up war mongers on here who probably saw the headline 'GOTCHA' who seem to be claiming they are more patriotic because they do.
The likes of Milosevic have also used 'well we were at war with them' as their defence and they too were rightfully found guilty of war crimes and atrocities.

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?


We were at war.

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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Kermit8 Flag Hevon 14 Apr 13 4.59pm Send a Private Message to Kermit8 Add Kermit8 as a friend

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.
Nothing more and nothing less. And it should be regulated.

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.


What makes you think I hate landlords? Mr Miles - my landlord throughout the 90's . Nicest bloke. Charged a fair monthly rent. He could probably charge £700-900 for the same room today. But he won't be. Not in his nature you see. He's decent.

 


Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]


Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Stirlingsays Flag 14 Apr 13 5.09pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Quote JohnyBoy at 14 Apr 2013 4.45pm

Well said Jamiemartin
I have to say, it astounds me the level of ignorance that I have been reading about this.
As Jamiemartin said we were not actually at war with Argentina over the Falklands, neither country declared war as this brings with it a number of international obligations, Thatcher merely said that she was sending a task force south to reclaim the islands 'by force if necessary.' However this, as she knew full well, also obliged her to adhere to certain rules i.e. international law, maritime law and the Geneva convention - all updated after WW2 to protect conflicts from spreading, to protect civilians and prisoners - believe me we should all believe that governments adhere by these rules. One of those updated requirements was to set up a 'sphere of conflict' which in the case of the Falklands was a 200 mile exclusion zone. (in Iraq it was a no fly zone around certain defined parallels).
The Belgrano was sunk 36 miles outside the exclusion zone by a nuclear submarine on direct orders from the UK Government, although its precise co-ordinates had been disclosed
This was reported to MPs 3 years later by Clive Ponting who was subsequently charged with a breach of the Official secrets act.
That the sinking took place 14 hours after a peace deal was announced by Peru (although Thatcher said she didn't receive it hmmmm...) is largely irrelevant as it was a breach of international law and the conventions of warfare in itself.
Technically she cant be charged with a war crime because Britain were not technically at war but she can be charged with an atrocity. The likelihood of this is however negligible given that the UK has a permanent veto on the security council that governs the UN tribunal.
For the record I was in favour of the Falklands being reclaimed (and indeed the Iraq war with certain amendments) but I cannot agree with a war crime or deliberate atrocity - and I am baffled that there are some whipped up war mongers on here who probably saw the headline 'GOTCHA' who seem to be claiming they are more patriotic because they do.
The likes of Milosevic have also used 'well we were at war with them' as their defence and they too were rightfully found guilty of war crimes and atrocities.

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.
At the very least they were trying to divert resources in a cat and mouse game.

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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
chris123 Flag hove actually 14 Apr 13 5.19pm Send a Private Message to chris123 Add chris123 as a friend

Quote Stirlingsays at 14 Apr 2013 5.09pm

Quote JohnyBoy at 14 Apr 2013 4.45pm

Well said Jamiemartin
I have to say, it astounds me the level of ignorance that I have been reading about this.
As Jamiemartin said we were not actually at war with Argentina over the Falklands, neither country declared war as this brings with it a number of international obligations, Thatcher merely said that she was sending a task force south to reclaim the islands 'by force if necessary.' However this, as she knew full well, also obliged her to adhere to certain rules i.e. international law, maritime law and the Geneva convention - all updated after WW2 to protect conflicts from spreading, to protect civilians and prisoners - believe me we should all believe that governments adhere by these rules. One of those updated requirements was to set up a 'sphere of conflict' which in the case of the Falklands was a 200 mile exclusion zone. (in Iraq it was a no fly zone around certain defined parallels).
The Belgrano was sunk 36 miles outside the exclusion zone by a nuclear submarine on direct orders from the UK Government, although its precise co-ordinates had been disclosed
This was reported to MPs 3 years later by Clive Ponting who was subsequently charged with a breach of the Official secrets act.
That the sinking took place 14 hours after a peace deal was announced by Peru (although Thatcher said she didn't receive it hmmmm...) is largely irrelevant as it was a breach of international law and the conventions of warfare in itself.
Technically she cant be charged with a war crime because Britain were not technically at war but she can be charged with an atrocity. The likelihood of this is however negligible given that the UK has a permanent veto on the security council that governs the UN tribunal.
For the record I was in favour of the Falklands being reclaimed (and indeed the Iraq war with certain amendments) but I cannot agree with a war crime or deliberate atrocity - and I am baffled that there are some whipped up war mongers on here who probably saw the headline 'GOTCHA' who seem to be claiming they are more patriotic because they do.
The likes of Milosevic have also used 'well we were at war with them' as their defence and they too were rightfully found guilty of war crimes and atrocities.

What a load of old tosh.



We were at war, we didn't start the conflict, no other Argentine vessel took to sea after the sinking.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Kermit8 Flag Hevon 14 Apr 13 5.28pm Send a Private Message to Kermit8 Add Kermit8 as a friend

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.
Nothing more and nothing less. And it should be regulated.


Edited by Kermit8 (14 Apr 2013 2.02pm)

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)


Balham [Link]

£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

[Link]


Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
dannyh Flag wherever I lay my hat....... 14 Apr 13 5.31pm Send a Private Message to dannyh Add dannyh as a friend

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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

  

Page 93 of 126 < 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > Gold Talk > Margaret Thatcher