Austerity Works

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 4 of 15 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 17 Dec 15 6.12pm
Quote NickRobinson at 17 Dec 2015 5.52pm Quote Hoof Hearted at 17 Dec 2015 4.10pm Quote nickgusset at 17 Dec 2015 3.30pm Quote Stuk at 17 Dec 2015 3.10pm Quote nickgusset at 17 Dec 2015 3.04pm Quote Pussay Patrol at 17 Dec 2015 2.31pm Quote silvertop at 17 Dec 2015 11.52am We were unfavourably hit by the 2008 crisis because our economy is so heavily geared towards finance. We have been favourably blessed by the recovery as it was that sector that has made the biggest adjustment. Control over public spending has improved or credit rating and is one of many factors that has led to where we are now. However, the OP stating that the tight budget is the cause of low unemployment does not suggest a very savvy grip on the complexities of economics. Best stick to football. I was making the connection between welfare reforms and unemployment figures, which are, in one way or another, connected. No one can really be against a lower welfare burden and in turn, more tax receipts going to the Exchequer ? Lower welfare burden = 105,000 homeless children this Christmas (figure from today's Today programme. Only via a warped interpretation of the word. more than 103,000 children will spend Christmas in B&Bs, hostels or temporary rented homes. Oh that's all right then. They would be able to live in their own homes nick, but any spare housing is all rented out to EU citizens exercising their rights to live/work any where in the EU and of course asylum seekers/refugees/economic migrants from the middle east... not to mention hordes of illegal immigrants living here too. But of course that is there right to live here in the UK and we must welcome them with open arms according to lefty/liberal supporters. To try and cope with demand we end up building houses on flood plains and then you lot blame the flood on governmental incompetence and global warming! Well Hoof, apparently all this immigration is an unmitigated benefit to the country. In fact it is so good for us that I'm sure the likes of Gussett will be calling for far more immigration so that we can treated to even more blessings. Compulsory billeting on the wicked people that aren't considered victims of austerity presumably. To quote my teenage son, stop chatting s***.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 17 Dec 15 6.12pm

Quote NickRobinson at 17 Dec 2015 5.52pm

Quote Hoof Hearted at 17 Dec 2015 4.10pm

Quote nickgusset at 17 Dec 2015 3.30pm

Quote Stuk at 17 Dec 2015 3.10pm

Quote nickgusset at 17 Dec 2015 3.04pm

Quote Pussay Patrol at 17 Dec 2015 2.31pm

Quote silvertop at 17 Dec 2015 11.52am

We were unfavourably hit by the 2008 crisis because our economy is so heavily geared towards finance. We have been favourably blessed by the recovery as it was that sector that has made the biggest adjustment.

Control over public spending has improved or credit rating and is one of many factors that has led to where we are now.

However, the OP stating that the tight budget is the cause of low unemployment does not suggest a very savvy grip on the complexities of economics.

Best stick to football.

I was making the connection between welfare reforms and unemployment figures, which are, in one way or another, connected.

No one can really be against a lower welfare burden and in turn, more tax receipts going to the Exchequer ?

Lower welfare burden = 105,000 homeless children this Christmas (figure from today's Today programme.

Only via a warped interpretation of the word.

more than 103,000 children will spend Christmas in B&Bs, hostels or temporary rented homes.

Oh that's all right then.

They would be able to live in their own homes nick, but any spare housing is all rented out to EU citizens exercising their rights to live/work any where in the EU and of course asylum seekers/refugees/economic migrants from the middle east... not to mention hordes of illegal immigrants living here too.

But of course that is there right to live here in the UK and we must welcome them with open arms according to lefty/liberal supporters. To try and cope with demand we end up building houses on flood plains and then you lot blame the flood on governmental incompetence and global warming!

Well Hoof, apparently all this immigration is an unmitigated benefit to the country. In fact it is so good for us that I'm sure the likes of Gussett will be calling for far more immigration so that we can treated to even more blessings. Compulsory billeting on the wicked people that aren't considered victims of austerity presumably.

To quote my teenage son, stop chatting s***.

Alert a moderator to this post

elgrande bedford 17 Dec 15 6.41pm
Quote nickgusset at 17 Dec 2015 6.10pm Quote Hoof Hearted at 17 Dec 2015 4.10pm Quote nickgusset at 17 Dec 2015 3.30pm Quote Stuk at 17 Dec 2015 3.10pm Quote nickgusset at 17 Dec 2015 3.04pm Quote Pussay Patrol at 17 Dec 2015 2.31pm Quote silvertop at 17 Dec 2015 11.52am We were unfavourably hit by the 2008 crisis because our economy is so heavily geared towards finance. We have been favourably blessed by the recovery as it was that sector that has made the biggest adjustment. Control over public spending has improved or credit rating and is one of many factors that has led to where we are now. However, the OP stating that the tight budget is the cause of low unemployment does not suggest a very savvy grip on the complexities of economics. Best stick to football. I was making the connection between welfare reforms and unemployment figures, which are, in one way or another, connected. No one can really be against a lower welfare burden and in turn, more tax receipts going to the Exchequer ? Lower welfare burden = 105,000 homeless children this Christmas (figure from today's Today programme. Only via a warped interpretation of the word. more than 103,000 children will spend Christmas in B&Bs, hostels or temporary rented homes. Oh that's all right then. They would be able to live in their own homes nick, but any spare housing is all rented out to EU citizens exercising their rights to live/work any where in the EU and of course asylum seekers/refugees/economic migrants from the middle east... not to mention hordes of illegal immigrants living here too. But of course that is there right to live here in the UK and we must welcome them with open arms according to lefty/liberal supporters. To try and cope with demand we end up building houses on flood plains and then you lot blame the flood on governmental incompetence and global warming! There are over 600,000 empty homes in the U.K. Considering we are in the top 10 richest countries in the world, having 1 homeless child is unacceptable. Edited by nickgusset (17 Dec 2015 6.11pm) Now you see that is more left wing bollocks,A house only has to be empty for 6 months to be classed as "long term". And the 600.000 is very missleading as over half of that amount are re- rented,within that time scale. I am not saying it is not a problem....it is,but not any of the ruling parties have built anywhere near enough new homes. And as much as the multi culture loving left don't like it, mass immigration does nothing but add huge amounts to the problem. always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.
Alert a moderator to this post

elgrande

bedford 17 Dec 15 6.41pm

Quote nickgusset at 17 Dec 2015 6.10pm

Quote Hoof Hearted at 17 Dec 2015 4.10pm

Quote nickgusset at 17 Dec 2015 3.30pm

Quote Stuk at 17 Dec 2015 3.10pm

Quote nickgusset at 17 Dec 2015 3.04pm

Quote Pussay Patrol at 17 Dec 2015 2.31pm

Quote silvertop at 17 Dec 2015 11.52am

Control over public spending has improved or credit rating and is one of many factors that has led to where we are now.

However, the OP stating that the tight budget is the cause of low unemployment does not suggest a very savvy grip on the complexities of economics.

Best stick to football.

I was making the connection between welfare reforms and unemployment figures, which are, in one way or another, connected.

No one can really be against a lower welfare burden and in turn, more tax receipts going to the Exchequer ?

Lower welfare burden = 105,000 homeless children this Christmas (figure from today's Today programme.

Only via a warped interpretation of the word.

more than 103,000 children will spend Christmas in B&Bs, hostels or temporary rented homes.

Oh that's all right then.

There are over 600,000 empty homes in the U.K. Considering we are in the top 10 richest countries in the world, having 1 homeless child is unacceptable.

Edited by nickgusset (17 Dec 2015 6.11pm)

Now you see that is more left wing bollocks,A house only has to be empty for 6 months to be classed as "long term".
And the 600.000 is very missleading as over half of that amount are re- rented,within that time scale.
I am not saying it is not a problem....it is,but not any of the ruling parties have built anywhere near enough new homes.
And as much as the multi culture loving left don't like it, mass immigration does nothing but add huge amounts to the problem.

always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 17 Dec 15 6.57pm
Quote elgrande at 17 Dec 2015 6.41pm Quote nickgusset at 17 Dec 2015 6.10pm Quote Hoof Hearted at 17 Dec 2015 4.10pm Quote nickgusset at 17 Dec 2015 3.30pm Quote Stuk at 17 Dec 2015 3.10pm Quote nickgusset at 17 Dec 2015 3.04pm Quote Pussay Patrol at 17 Dec 2015 2.31pm Quote silvertop at 17 Dec 2015 11.52am We were unfavourably hit by the 2008 crisis because our economy is so heavily geared towards finance. We have been favourably blessed by the recovery as it was that sector that has made the biggest adjustment. Control over public spending has improved or credit rating and is one of many factors that has led to where we are now. However, the OP stating that the tight budget is the cause of low unemployment does not suggest a very savvy grip on the complexities of economics. Best stick to football. I was making the connection between welfare reforms and unemployment figures, which are, in one way or another, connected. No one can really be against a lower welfare burden and in turn, more tax receipts going to the Exchequer ? Lower welfare burden = 105,000 homeless children this Christmas (figure from today's Today programme. Only via a warped interpretation of the word. more than 103,000 children will spend Christmas in B&Bs, hostels or temporary rented homes. Oh that's all right then. They would be able to live in their own homes nick, but any spare housing is all rented out to EU citizens exercising their rights to live/work any where in the EU and of course asylum seekers/refugees/economic migrants from the middle east... not to mention hordes of illegal immigrants living here too. But of course that is there right to live here in the UK and we must welcome them with open arms according to lefty/liberal supporters. To try and cope with demand we end up building houses on flood plains and then you lot blame the flood on governmental incompetence and global warming! There are over 600,000 empty homes in the U.K. Considering we are in the top 10 richest countries in the world, having 1 homeless child is unacceptable. Edited by nickgusset (17 Dec 2015 6.11pm) Now you see that is more left wing bollocks,A house only has to be empty for 6 months to be classed as "long term". And the 600.000 is very missleading as over half of that amount are re- rented,within that time scale. I am not saying it is not a problem....it is,but not any of the ruling parties have built anywhere near enough new homes. And as much as the multi culture loving left don't like it, mass immigration does nothing but add huge amounts to the problem. Whilst I concede your first point about numbers (although I am taking your word for it, I think you are mistaken in blaming the homeless problem on immigration. Many many people (including those with chilldren) have been evicted from their homes because they can't afford the extortionate rent due to a reduction in welfare support. Nothing to do with immigration. Edited by nickgusset (17 Dec 2015 6.59pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 17 Dec 15 6.57pm

Quote elgrande at 17 Dec 2015 6.41pm

Quote nickgusset at 17 Dec 2015 6.10pm

Quote Hoof Hearted at 17 Dec 2015 4.10pm

Quote nickgusset at 17 Dec 2015 3.30pm

Quote Stuk at 17 Dec 2015 3.10pm

Quote nickgusset at 17 Dec 2015 3.04pm

Quote Pussay Patrol at 17 Dec 2015 2.31pm

Quote silvertop at 17 Dec 2015 11.52am

Control over public spending has improved or credit rating and is one of many factors that has led to where we are now.

However, the OP stating that the tight budget is the cause of low unemployment does not suggest a very savvy grip on the complexities of economics.

Best stick to football.

I was making the connection between welfare reforms and unemployment figures, which are, in one way or another, connected.

No one can really be against a lower welfare burden and in turn, more tax receipts going to the Exchequer ?

Lower welfare burden = 105,000 homeless children this Christmas (figure from today's Today programme.

Only via a warped interpretation of the word.

more than 103,000 children will spend Christmas in B&Bs, hostels or temporary rented homes.

Oh that's all right then.

There are over 600,000 empty homes in the U.K. Considering we are in the top 10 richest countries in the world, having 1 homeless child is unacceptable.

Edited by nickgusset (17 Dec 2015 6.11pm)

Whilst I concede your first point about numbers (although I am taking your word for it, I think you are mistaken in blaming the homeless problem on immigration. Many many people (including those with chilldren) have been evicted from their homes because they can't afford the extortionate rent due to a reduction in welfare support.
Nothing to do with immigration.

Edited by nickgusset (17 Dec 2015 6.59pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

elgrande bedford 17 Dec 15 7.08pm
Quote nickgusset at 17 Dec 2015 6.57pm Quote elgrande at 17 Dec 2015 6.41pm Quote nickgusset at 17 Dec 2015 6.10pm Quote Hoof Hearted at 17 Dec 2015 4.10pm Quote nickgusset at 17 Dec 2015 3.30pm Quote Stuk at 17 Dec 2015 3.10pm Quote nickgusset at 17 Dec 2015 3.04pm Quote Pussay Patrol at 17 Dec 2015 2.31pm Quote silvertop at 17 Dec 2015 11.52am We were unfavourably hit by the 2008 crisis because our economy is so heavily geared towards finance. We have been favourably blessed by the recovery as it was that sector that has made the biggest adjustment. Control over public spending has improved or credit rating and is one of many factors that has led to where we are now. However, the OP stating that the tight budget is the cause of low unemployment does not suggest a very savvy grip on the complexities of economics. Best stick to football. I was making the connection between welfare reforms and unemployment figures, which are, in one way or another, connected. No one can really be against a lower welfare burden and in turn, more tax receipts going to the Exchequer ? Lower welfare burden = 105,000 homeless children this Christmas (figure from today's Today programme. Only via a warped interpretation of the word. more than 103,000 children will spend Christmas in B&Bs, hostels or temporary rented homes. Oh that's all right then. They would be able to live in their own homes nick, but any spare housing is all rented out to EU citizens exercising their rights to live/work any where in the EU and of course asylum seekers/refugees/economic migrants from the middle east... not to mention hordes of illegal immigrants living here too. But of course that is there right to live here in the UK and we must welcome them with open arms according to lefty/liberal supporters. To try and cope with demand we end up building houses on flood plains and then you lot blame the flood on governmental incompetence and global warming! There are over 600,000 empty homes in the U.K. Considering we are in the top 10 richest countries in the world, having 1 homeless child is unacceptable. Edited by nickgusset (17 Dec 2015 6.11pm) Now you see that is more left wing bollocks,A house only has to be empty for 6 months to be classed as "long term". And the 600.000 is very missleading as over half of that amount are re- rented,within that time scale. I am not saying it is not a problem....it is,but not any of the ruling parties have built anywhere near enough new homes. And as much as the multi culture loving left don't like it, mass immigration does nothing but add huge amounts to the problem. Whilst I concede your first point about numbers (although I am taking your word for it, I think you are mistaken in blaming the homeless problem on immigration. Many many people (including those with chilldren) have been evicted from their homes because they can't afford the extortionate rent due to a reduction in welfare support. Nothing to do with immigration. Edited by nickgusset (17 Dec 2015 6.59pm) But I am not blaming it entirely on immigration I said it adds to the problem....which lets be fair is prety darn obvious. But the cap is �26.000 I believe FFS if you cannot find anywhere to rent in that area and you rely on benifits then you have to move to where it is affordable. In London the rents are through the roof I agree,but it still matters that not enough social housing has been built in the last 20 years or more. You have to cut the cloth accordingly. always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.
Alert a moderator to this post

elgrande

bedford 17 Dec 15 7.08pm

Quote nickgusset at 17 Dec 2015 6.57pm

Quote elgrande at 17 Dec 2015 6.41pm

Quote nickgusset at 17 Dec 2015 6.10pm

Quote Hoof Hearted at 17 Dec 2015 4.10pm

Quote nickgusset at 17 Dec 2015 3.30pm

Quote Stuk at 17 Dec 2015 3.10pm

Quote nickgusset at 17 Dec 2015 3.04pm

Quote Pussay Patrol at 17 Dec 2015 2.31pm

Quote silvertop at 17 Dec 2015 11.52am

Control over public spending has improved or credit rating and is one of many factors that has led to where we are now.

However, the OP stating that the tight budget is the cause of low unemployment does not suggest a very savvy grip on the complexities of economics.

Best stick to football.

I was making the connection between welfare reforms and unemployment figures, which are, in one way or another, connected.

No one can really be against a lower welfare burden and in turn, more tax receipts going to the Exchequer ?

Lower welfare burden = 105,000 homeless children this Christmas (figure from today's Today programme.

Only via a warped interpretation of the word.

more than 103,000 children will spend Christmas in B&Bs, hostels or temporary rented homes.

Oh that's all right then.

There are over 600,000 empty homes in the U.K. Considering we are in the top 10 richest countries in the world, having 1 homeless child is unacceptable.

Edited by nickgusset (17 Dec 2015 6.11pm)

Edited by nickgusset (17 Dec 2015 6.59pm)

But I am not blaming it entirely on immigration I said it adds to the problem....which lets be fair is prety darn obvious.
But the cap is �26.000 I believe FFS if you cannot find anywhere to rent in that area and you rely on benifits then you have to move to where it is affordable.
In London the rents are through the roof I agree,but it still matters that not enough social housing has been built in the last 20 years or more.
You have to cut the cloth accordingly.

always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.

Alert a moderator to this post

-TUX- Alphabettispaghetti 17 Dec 15 7.40pm
Rental prices are crippling this, and future generations. It used to be a way of having a home while saving a deposit for your OWN home, but now many are paying the mortgages of others luckily enough to be in a position where they can get credit. Some are good businessmen but the majority, in my experience, are just fortunate as 'the baby boomers' left them a chunk and leaving it in the bank earns diddly, so why not become a landlord. The point made regarding the lack of house building is a valid one but equally rents should be capped on the properties that already exist, imo. If not that, then heavily tax 3rd+ property ownership to the point that makes it a less attractive proposition for many. But neither will ever happen (regardless of which party are in 'power') as higher house prices = higher mortgages = happy bankers. And that's the deal. 'Feudal times' are back in vogue. Time to move forward together.
Alert a moderator to this post

-TUX-

Alphabettispaghetti 17 Dec 15 7.40pm

Rental prices are crippling this, and future generations.
It used to be a way of having a home while saving a deposit for your OWN home, but now many are paying the mortgages of others luckily enough to be in a position where they can get credit.
Some are good businessmen but the majority, in my experience, are just fortunate as 'the baby boomers' left them a chunk and leaving it in the bank earns diddly, so why not become a landlord.
The point made regarding the lack of house building is a valid one but equally rents should be capped on the properties that already exist, imo. If not that, then heavily tax 3rd+ property ownership to the point that makes it a less attractive proposition for many.
But neither will ever happen (regardless of which party are in 'power') as higher house prices = higher mortgages = happy bankers.
And that's the deal.

'Feudal times' are back in vogue.

Time to move forward together.

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 17 Dec 15 7.41pm
Quote elgrande at 17 Dec 2015 7.08pm Quote nickgusset at 17 Dec 2015 6.57pm Quote elgrande at 17 Dec 2015 6.41pm Quote nickgusset at 17 Dec 2015 6.10pm Quote Hoof Hearted at 17 Dec 2015 4.10pm Quote nickgusset at 17 Dec 2015 3.30pm Quote Stuk at 17 Dec 2015 3.10pm Quote nickgusset at 17 Dec 2015 3.04pm Quote Pussay Patrol at 17 Dec 2015 2.31pm Quote silvertop at 17 Dec 2015 11.52am We were unfavourably hit by the 2008 crisis because our economy is so heavily geared towards finance. We have been favourably blessed by the recovery as it was that sector that has made the biggest adjustment. Control over public spending has improved or credit rating and is one of many factors that has led to where we are now. However, the OP stating that the tight budget is the cause of low unemployment does not suggest a very savvy grip on the complexities of economics. Best stick to football. I was making the connection between welfare reforms and unemployment figures, which are, in one way or another, connected. No one can really be against a lower welfare burden and in turn, more tax receipts going to the Exchequer ? Lower welfare burden = 105,000 homeless children this Christmas (figure from today's Today programme. Only via a warped interpretation of the word. more than 103,000 children will spend Christmas in B&Bs, hostels or temporary rented homes. Oh that's all right then. They would be able to live in their own homes nick, but any spare housing is all rented out to EU citizens exercising their rights to live/work any where in the EU and of course asylum seekers/refugees/economic migrants from the middle east... not to mention hordes of illegal immigrants living here too. But of course that is there right to live here in the UK and we must welcome them with open arms according to lefty/liberal supporters. To try and cope with demand we end up building houses on flood plains and then you lot blame the flood on governmental incompetence and global warming! There are over 600,000 empty homes in the U.K. Considering we are in the top 10 richest countries in the world, having 1 homeless child is unacceptable. Edited by nickgusset (17 Dec 2015 6.11pm) Now you see that is more left wing bollocks,A house only has to be empty for 6 months to be classed as "long term". And the 600.000 is very missleading as over half of that amount are re- rented,within that time scale. I am not saying it is not a problem....it is,but not any of the ruling parties have built anywhere near enough new homes. And as much as the multi culture loving left don't like it, mass immigration does nothing but add huge amounts to the problem. Whilst I concede your first point about numbers (although I am taking your word for it, I think you are mistaken in blaming the homeless problem on immigration. Many many people (including those with chilldren) have been evicted from their homes because they can't afford the extortionate rent due to a reduction in welfare support. Nothing to do with immigration. Edited by nickgusset (17 Dec 2015 6.59pm) But I am not blaming it entirely on immigration I said it adds to the problem....which lets be fair is prety darn obvious. But the cap is �26.000 I believe FFS if you cannot find anywhere to rent in that area and you rely on benifits then you have to move to where it is affordable. In London the rents are through the roof I agree,but it still matters that not enough social housing has been built in the last 20 years or more. You have to cut the cloth accordingly. Many people work, moving somewhere cheaper, away from your community could mean having to give the job up.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 17 Dec 15 7.41pm

Quote elgrande at 17 Dec 2015 7.08pm

Quote nickgusset at 17 Dec 2015 6.57pm

Quote elgrande at 17 Dec 2015 6.41pm

Quote nickgusset at 17 Dec 2015 6.10pm

Quote Hoof Hearted at 17 Dec 2015 4.10pm

Quote nickgusset at 17 Dec 2015 3.30pm

Quote Stuk at 17 Dec 2015 3.10pm

Quote nickgusset at 17 Dec 2015 3.04pm

Quote Pussay Patrol at 17 Dec 2015 2.31pm

Quote silvertop at 17 Dec 2015 11.52am

Control over public spending has improved or credit rating and is one of many factors that has led to where we are now.

However, the OP stating that the tight budget is the cause of low unemployment does not suggest a very savvy grip on the complexities of economics.

Best stick to football.

I was making the connection between welfare reforms and unemployment figures, which are, in one way or another, connected.

No one can really be against a lower welfare burden and in turn, more tax receipts going to the Exchequer ?

Lower welfare burden = 105,000 homeless children this Christmas (figure from today's Today programme.

Only via a warped interpretation of the word.

more than 103,000 children will spend Christmas in B&Bs, hostels or temporary rented homes.

Oh that's all right then.

There are over 600,000 empty homes in the U.K. Considering we are in the top 10 richest countries in the world, having 1 homeless child is unacceptable.

Edited by nickgusset (17 Dec 2015 6.11pm)

Edited by nickgusset (17 Dec 2015 6.59pm)

Many people work, moving somewhere cheaper, away from your community could mean having to give the job up.

Alert a moderator to this post

Tom-the-eagle Croydon 17 Dec 15 8.04pm
Quote -TUX- at 17 Dec 2015 7.40pm Rental prices are crippling this, and future generations. It used to be a way of having a home while saving a deposit for your OWN home, but now many are paying the mortgages of others luckily enough to be in a position where they can get credit. Some are good businessmen but the majority, in my experience, are just fortunate as 'the baby boomers' left them a chunk and leaving it in the bank earns diddly, so why not become a landlord. The point made regarding the lack of house building is a valid one but equally rents should be capped on the properties that already exist, imo. If not that, then heavily tax 3rd+ property ownership to the point that makes it a less attractive proposition for many. But neither will ever happen (regardless of which party are in 'power') as higher house prices = higher mortgages = happy bankers. And that's the deal. 'Feudal times' are back in vogue. TUX - as a landlord it's not in my interest to want to agree with you however I do believe you are correct. In order to stop rents increasing there are really only two things which can be done. 1, stop the supply (i.e. dramatically reduce our net immigration figure) 2, Introduce some kind of system to cap rental prices. I don't really see anything else working. All the time we have an open door immigration policy rents will continue to rise. This month I have let two properties, one to two Polish girls and one to an Italian family. I have never bothered to work anything out but I would guess that over three quarters of properties I have let over the past 5 years have been to foreign nationals. "It feels much better than it ever did, much more sensitive." John Wayne Bobbit
Alert a moderator to this post

Tom-the-eagle

Croydon 17 Dec 15 8.04pm

Quote -TUX- at 17 Dec 2015 7.40pm

'Feudal times' are back in vogue.

TUX - as a landlord it's not in my interest to want to agree with you however I do believe you are correct.
In order to stop rents increasing there are really only two things which can be done.
1, stop the supply (i.e. dramatically reduce our net immigration figure)
2, Introduce some kind of system to cap rental prices.
I don't really see anything else working.
All the time we have an open door immigration policy rents will continue to rise.
This month I have let two properties, one to two Polish girls and one to an Italian family.
I have never bothered to work anything out but I would guess that over three quarters of properties I have let over the past 5 years have been to foreign nationals.

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

Alert a moderator to this post

dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 17 Dec 15 8.15pm
Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure all the finance ministers for Jermey Corbyn on here will do ) but if you are spending beyond your means that leads to debt, and more debt. The only way out is to lessen your spending. Choices have to be made as to what your are going to save on. Waitrose to Aldi, going out to staying in, Sky + HD to freeview, driving to public transport.Point is we've all had to make cuts when the times are tough, and this government I'm pleased to say, are making some good approaches to welfare regulation. You know they are on the right track when the great unwashed start marching on Number 10 amid a cloud of Lambert and Butler and weed, indignant to their very core that they may have to get a job if they wish to smoke a bar a week. Someone somewhere is going to have to take a bite of the shyte sandwich, in fact we all are really, look at how many were made redundant in the HM Forces, Jesus the Army is that small now we could all fit in Wembley stadium, without needing the pitch !!! 25 thousand proud men and women made redundant, and yet the scroungers are moaning about a �25000 cap on handouts! excuse me but fcuk the fcuk off. Social housing has always been an issue, always will be it's an expensive problem that has to wait in line just like the battered and nearly broken NHS. The point has been made, and I agree entirely with it, that accepting a mass of immigrants is in no way going to help the problem, unless of course they are all gazzilionaire house builders,surgeons and nurses. Cuts simply have to happen, it's never nice, but essential non the less. Edited by dannyh (17 Dec 2015 8.19pm) "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

dannyh

wherever I lay my hat....... 17 Dec 15 8.15pm

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure all the finance ministers for Jermey Corbyn on here will do ) but if you are spending beyond your means that leads to debt, and more debt.

The only way out is to lessen your spending. Choices have to be made as to what your are going to save on.

Waitrose to Aldi, going out to staying in, Sky + HD to freeview, driving to public transport.Point is we've all had to make cuts when the times are tough, and this government I'm pleased to say, are making some good approaches to welfare regulation. You know they are on the right track when the great unwashed start marching on Number 10 amid a cloud of Lambert and Butler and weed, indignant to their very core that they may have to get a job if they wish to smoke a bar a week.

Someone somewhere is going to have to take a bite of the shyte sandwich, in fact we all are really, look at how many were made redundant in the HM Forces, Jesus the Army is that small now we could all fit in Wembley stadium, without needing the pitch !!! 25 thousand proud men and women made redundant, and yet the scroungers are moaning about a �25000 cap on handouts! excuse me but fcuk the fcuk off.

Social housing has always been an issue, always will be it's an expensive problem that has to wait in line just like the battered and nearly broken NHS.

The point has been made, and I agree entirely with it, that accepting a mass of immigrants is in no way going to help the problem, unless of course they are all gazzilionaire house builders,surgeons and nurses.

Cuts simply have to happen, it's never nice, but essential non the less.

Edited by dannyh (17 Dec 2015 8.19pm)

"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

-TUX- Alphabettispaghetti 17 Dec 15 8.28pm
Quote Tom-the-eagle at 17 Dec 2015 8.04pm Quote -TUX- at 17 Dec 2015 7.40pm Rental prices are crippling this, and future generations. It used to be a way of having a home while saving a deposit for your OWN home, but now many are paying the mortgages of others luckily enough to be in a position where they can get credit. Some are good businessmen but the majority, in my experience, are just fortunate as 'the baby boomers' left them a chunk and leaving it in the bank earns diddly, so why not become a landlord. The point made regarding the lack of house building is a valid one but equally rents should be capped on the properties that already exist, imo. If not that, then heavily tax 3rd+ property ownership to the point that makes it a less attractive proposition for many. But neither will ever happen (regardless of which party are in 'power') as higher house prices = higher mortgages = happy bankers. And that's the deal. 'Feudal times' are back in vogue. TUX - as a landlord it's not in my interest to want to agree with you however I do believe you are correct. In order to stop rents increasing there are really only two things which can be done. 1, stop the supply (i.e. dramatically reduce our net immigration figure) 2, Introduce some kind of system to cap rental prices. I don't really see anything else working. All the time we have an open door immigration policy rents will continue to rise. This month I have let two properties, one to two Polish girls and one to an Italian family. I have never bothered to work anything out but I would guess that over three quarters of properties I have let over the past 5 years have been to foreign nationals. The immigration issue is just another example of our govt (regardless of colours) not listening to the majority of the electorate. I applaud your honesty. (thumbs up) Time to move forward together.
Alert a moderator to this post

-TUX-

Alphabettispaghetti 17 Dec 15 8.28pm

Quote Tom-the-eagle at 17 Dec 2015 8.04pm

Quote -TUX- at 17 Dec 2015 7.40pm

'Feudal times' are back in vogue.

The immigration issue is just another example of our govt (regardless of colours) not listening to the majority of the electorate.

I applaud your honesty. (thumbs up)

Time to move forward together.

Alert a moderator to this post

elgrande bedford 17 Dec 15 8.32pm
Quote -TUX- at 17 Dec 2015 7.40pm Rental prices are crippling this, and future generations. It used to be a way of having a home while saving a deposit for your OWN home, but now many are paying the mortgages of others luckily enough to be in a position where they can get credit. Some are good businessmen but the majority, in my experience, are just fortunate as 'the baby boomers' left them a chunk and leaving it in the bank earns diddly, so why not become a landlord. The point made regarding the lack of house building is a valid one but equally rents should be capped on the properties that already exist, imo. If not that, then heavily tax 3rd+ property ownership to the point that makes it a less attractive proposition for many. But neither will ever happen (regardless of which party are in 'power') as higher house prices = higher mortgages = happy bankers. And that's the deal. 'Feudal times' are back in vogue. As someone who is more to the right of things(you would never guess" I tend to agrre with you on this Tux,to a certain extent. maybe on the third propertie and above you pay a higher rate,or have to let said property out at an affordale rate. But as has been said while more and more people come here they need homes,more people means more demand...therefore landlords are laughing. Edited by elgrande (17 Dec 2015 8.33pm) always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.
Alert a moderator to this post

elgrande

bedford 17 Dec 15 8.32pm

Quote -TUX- at 17 Dec 2015 7.40pm

'Feudal times' are back in vogue.

As someone who is more to the right of things(you would never guess" I tend to agrre with you on this Tux,to a certain extent.
maybe on the third propertie and above you pay a higher rate,or have to let said property out at an affordale rate.
But as has been said while more and more people come here they need homes,more people means more demand...therefore landlords are laughing.

Edited by elgrande (17 Dec 2015 8.33pm)

always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.

Alert a moderator to this post

-TUX- Alphabettispaghetti 17 Dec 15 8.39pm
Quote dannyh at 17 Dec 2015 8.15pm Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure all the finance ministers for Jermey Corbyn on here will do ) but if you are spending beyond your means that leads to debt, and more debt. The only way out is to lessen your spending. Choices have to be made as to what your are going to save on. Waitrose to Aldi, going out to staying in, Sky + HD to freeview, driving to public transport.Point is we've all had to make cuts when the times are tough, and this government I'm pleased to say, are making some good approaches to welfare regulation. You know they are on the right track when the great unwashed start marching on Number 10 amid a cloud of Lambert and Butler and weed, indignant to their very core that they may have to get a job if they wish to smoke a bar a week. Someone somewhere is going to have to take a bite of the shyte sandwich, in fact we all are really, look at how many were made redundant in the HM Forces, Jesus the Army is that small now we could all fit in Wembley stadium, without needing the pitch !!! 25 thousand proud men and women made redundant, and yet the scroungers are moaning about a �25000 cap on handouts! excuse me but fcuk the fcuk off. Social housing has always been an issue, always will be it's an expensive problem that has to wait in line just like the battered and nearly broken NHS. The point has been made, and I agree entirely with it, that accepting a mass of immigrants is in no way going to help the problem, unless of course they are all gazzilionaire house builders,surgeons and nurses. Cuts simply have to happen, it's never nice, but essential non the less. Edited by dannyh (17 Dec 2015 8.19pm) If austerity is working, how is it that the rich are getting richer? Where have they suffered in all of this? They haven't. The gap has expanded! You're just like my dear old mum tbh, blaming all the countries problems on those who never started the bl--dy problem in the first place but put the onus upon them! Kinda makes voting pointless? Time to move forward together.
Alert a moderator to this post

-TUX-

Alphabettispaghetti 17 Dec 15 8.39pm

Quote dannyh at 17 Dec 2015 8.15pm

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure all the finance ministers for Jermey Corbyn on here will do ) but if you are spending beyond your means that leads to debt, and more debt.

The only way out is to lessen your spending. Choices have to be made as to what your are going to save on.

Social housing has always been an issue, always will be it's an expensive problem that has to wait in line just like the battered and nearly broken NHS.

Cuts simply have to happen, it's never nice, but essential non the less.

Edited by dannyh (17 Dec 2015 8.19pm)

If austerity is working, how is it that the rich are getting richer? Where have they suffered in all of this? They haven't. The gap has expanded!

You're just like my dear old mum tbh, blaming all the countries problems on those who never started the bl--dy problem in the first place but put the onus upon them!
Kinda makes voting pointless?

Time to move forward together.

Alert a moderator to this post

Ketteridge Brighton 17 Dec 15 8.49pm
Quote We are goin up! at 17 Dec 2015 11.09am Quote Ketteridge at 17 Dec 2015 10.13am Depends how you look at it, people in work is at the highest level since records began in 1971 but unemployment is only just returning to levels of 2008. GDP has grown but GDP per capita is still below 2008 levels. The jobs that have been created have largely been unskilled. Median income has remained the same last year making people worse off in real terms and the top income decile have increased their income further in comparison. Public sector works have had their pay frozen for the next 4 years which means any rise in inflation will result in roughly a quarter or the work force being significantly worse off. In real terms homelessness and use of food banks has rocketed and levels of working people in poverty has hit record levels. Oh and national debts is up. Not really since there's been no inflation, in fact the essentials like fuel and food have fallen in price. Food bank use has rocketed because those nasty Tories changed legislation to allow job centres to direct people to them. It's also something to be proud of that we as a country provide charity like this off our own backs, rather than expecting the state to be the source of charity instead. National debt is up, you're right. Because the deficit hasn't really been dealt with, which is because we haven't really had austerity. Osborne has somehow duped the markets (and the public) into thinking we have and that he's economically responsible. As Mr Gristle has already said be being proud of the fact that 1 million people need to use food banks in a rich western country is slightly disturbing. The ridiculous thing is that to believe the idea that food bank have somehow linked up a demand and a supply that had previously been ignored or unnoticed you have to assume that during the Blair and Brown years the demand was high but these million people had no access to charity. They were I assume wandering around emaciated and starving looking for some free charity food. A lot has happened since 2008, and the days of Sheki Kuqi and Paddy McCarthy seem a whole different world away now but I'm sure I'd remember that. CPI was negative for a few months and wages grew at a faster rate, meaning living standards rose during this period but it was four months over the summer this needs to be set against years in which inflation has grown at a faster rate then wages. It also ignores the fact that RPI is at 1.1%, RPI unlike CPI includes housing costs and this has disproportionate effect on people below the median income. One supporter of hacking argued that without it "you will do away with the courage and pluck of the game, and I will be bound to bring over a lot of Frenchmen who would beat you with a week's practice -Blackheath secretary at first meeting of the F.A
Alert a moderator to this post

Ketteridge

Brighton 17 Dec 15 8.49pm

Quote We are goin up! at 17 Dec 2015 11.09am

Quote Ketteridge at 17 Dec 2015 10.13am

Depends how you look at it, people in work is at the highest level since records began in 1971 but unemployment is only just returning to levels of 2008. GDP has grown but GDP per capita is still below 2008 levels.
The jobs that have been created have largely been unskilled. Median income has remained the same last year making people worse off in real terms and the top income decile have increased their income further in comparison.
Public sector works have had their pay frozen for the next 4 years which means any rise in inflation will result in roughly a quarter or the work force being significantly worse off.
In real terms homelessness and use of food banks has rocketed and levels of working people in poverty has hit record levels.
Oh and national debts is up.

Not really since there's been no inflation, in fact the essentials like fuel and food have fallen in price.

Food bank use has rocketed because those nasty Tories changed legislation to allow job centres to direct people to them. It's also something to be proud of that we as a country provide charity like this off our own backs, rather than expecting the state to be the source of charity instead.

National debt is up, you're right. Because the deficit hasn't really been dealt with, which is because we haven't really had austerity. Osborne has somehow duped the markets (and the public) into thinking we have and that he's economically responsible.

As Mr Gristle has already said be being proud of the fact that 1 million people need to use food banks in a rich western country is slightly disturbing.
The ridiculous thing is that to believe the idea that food bank have somehow linked up a demand and a supply that had previously been ignored or unnoticed you have to assume that during the Blair and Brown years the demand was high but these million people had no access to charity. They were I assume wandering around emaciated and starving looking for some free charity food. A lot has happened since 2008, and the days of Sheki Kuqi and Paddy McCarthy seem a whole different world away now but I'm sure I'd remember that.

CPI was negative for a few months and wages grew at a faster rate, meaning living standards rose during this period but it was four months over the summer this needs to be set against years in which inflation has grown at a faster rate then wages. It also ignores the fact that RPI is at 1.1%, RPI unlike CPI includes housing costs and this has disproportionate effect on people below the median income.

One supporter of hacking argued that without it "you will do away with the courage and pluck of the game, and I will be bound to bring over a lot of Frenchmen who would beat you with a week's practice -Blackheath secretary at first meeting of the F.A

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 4 of 15 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Austerity Works

Site Map

Sponsors