More lunacy from the left
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 matt_himself  Matataland 26 Apr 16 9.21pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Kermit8
Millions of full time employees with kids, and some without, on low wages - £13-18k-ish - a year should be entitled to some help for housing as should those whose circumstances dictate that they genuinely need assistance too. They've ended up in the lesser salaried positions but that shouldn't mean they are there for the p1ss-taking. If there were to be a massive council house building programme I don't think many would begrudge those folk an affordable home rather than them lining the pockets of the already affluent. Those on 40k-70k+ could afford a tax tenner a week -that's 3 Cafe Nero coffees in The City - to help get such a scheme off to a start. A healthy and positive slight re-distribution of wealth and a better run housing policy to boot. What's not to like? Edited by Kermit8 (26 Apr 2016 8.52pm) Or people could stop property speculation, which in turn forces up house prices and rent, rather than pontificate on how others should be taxed even more than they are at present.
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| johnfirewall 26 Apr 16 9.52pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Kermit8
Millions of full time employees with kids, and some without, on low wages - £13-18k-ish - a year should be entitled to some help for housing as should those whose circumstances dictate that they genuinely need assistance too. They've ended up in the lesser salaried positions but that shouldn't mean they are there for the p1ss-taking. If there were to be a massive council house building programme I don't think many would begrudge those folk an affordable home rather than them lining the pockets of the already affluent. Those on 40k-70k+ could afford a tax tenner a week -that's 3 Cafe Nero coffees in The City - to help get such a scheme off to a start. A healthy and positive slight re-distribution of wealth and a better run housing policy to boot. What's not to like? Councils have the budget for it saved up. And that's after they've paid for accommodation for everyone who has ever decided to leave home without a means of supporting themselves. People make that choice, but as with any other handout the intended recipients are those who don't have one. There's a statistic about people on average living with parents till their 30s, which is probably in line with pre-war. Incidentally the last time London was at its current population.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Kermit8  Hevon 27 Apr 16 7.34am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by matt_himself
Or people could stop property speculation, which in turn forces up house prices and rent, rather than pontificate on how others should be taxed even more than they are at present. I agree. Which pontificating property speculators are you talking about? Though a better part-solution would be the re-introduction of rent controls abolished by the Right back in the 80's. That was lunacy, don't you agree, given the housing crisis that has unfolded since? Edited by Kermit8 (27 Apr 2016 7.41am)
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 27 Apr 16 8.42am |
|
|---|---|
|
Houses to buy are too expensive full stop. However why should people who work hard have to foot the bill for those that can't afford to buy ?
"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 |
|
| Kermit8 Hevon 27 Apr 16 8.47am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by dannyh
Houses to buy are too expensive full stop. However why should people who work hard have to foot the bill for those that can't afford to buy ? The already affluent don't need your protection but sure as hell must welcome it all the same.
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| fed up eagle Between Horley, Surrey and Preston... 27 Apr 16 8.50am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Cucking Funt
Why should anyone be entitled to state-subsidised housing, when the rest of us have to pay market rents or pay the going rate on a mortgage? They shouldn't be. They should live within their means. Not a week goes by without some dopey bird being wheeled out to appear on the local news-usually the BBC-to protest about savage cuts have robbed her and her over inflated family of living in some five bedroom mansion that she thinks she's entitled to. God forbid that she should work for it or live within her means.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 27 Apr 16 9.24am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by dannyh
Houses to buy are too expensive full stop. However why should people who work hard have to foot the bill for those that can't afford to buy ? The price of housing is a product of a very unregulated market controlling property prices and rent (also very expensive). The reality is that we needed to control this market back in the 80s when it boomed, and no one did, they rode the profit wave and talked about 'everyone owning their own home'. I don't think it should necessarily be true that everyone should own their own home, and certainly I don't believe in the idea of profiteering from the shortage of available housing for rent either. The state needs to act not by building more 'affordable housing' but by introducing rent controls or reclaiming properties. Its probably not viable to actually build enough council housing given the cost of land is tied to the cost of property (unless you then sell the property). Everyone who works a full working week should be able entitled to decent accommodation suitable to their needs.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 27 Apr 16 11.56am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
The price of housing is a product of a very unregulated market controlling property prices and rent (also very expensive). The reality is that we needed to control this market back in the 80s when it boomed, and no one did, they rode the profit wave and talked about 'everyone owning their own home'. I don't think it should necessarily be true that everyone should own their own home, and certainly I don't believe in the idea of profiteering from the shortage of available housing for rent either. The state needs to act not by building more 'affordable housing' but by introducing rent controls or reclaiming properties. Its probably not viable to actually build enough council housing given the cost of land is tied to the cost of property (unless you then sell the property). Everyone who works a full working week should be able entitled to decent accommodation suitable to their needs. Is that a f*** you to the Venezuelans?
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| We are goin up! Coulsdon 27 Apr 16 1.00pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
The price of housing is a product of a very unregulated market controlling property prices and rent (also very expensive). The reality is that we needed to control this market back in the 80s when it boomed, and no one did, they rode the profit wave and talked about 'everyone owning their own home'. I don't think it should necessarily be true that everyone should own their own home, and certainly I don't believe in the idea of profiteering from the shortage of available housing for rent either. The state needs to act not by building more 'affordable housing' but by introducing rent controls or reclaiming properties. Its probably not viable to actually build enough council housing given the cost of land is tied to the cost of property (unless you then sell the property). Everyone who works a full working week should be able entitled to decent accommodation suitable to their needs.
Every time you interfere with the market, there are unintended consequences that mean that the masses become less satisfied. Take a couple of examples with housing: Increase in Stamp Duty/Increased tax on rental profits on Buy to Let properties: Sounds great in a paper to bash BTL landlords. Unintended consequence is that rents go through the roof as a result. I work in the mortgage industry, the ONLY way that landlords can get a mortgage is if they put their rent up. It's not them being evil, it's so they can borrow. Increased rents make it harder for the tenant to save a deposit Help to Buy scheme giving interest free loans on new builds: Sounds great, doesn't it? Give out loads of really cheap mortgages to First Time Buyers providing they're new build. What's happened in reality is that these apartments are way, way overpriced. Mark my words, in five years' time these apartments will be dime a dozen and loads of property owners will be in negative equity. Leave the market alone. It works.
The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 27 Apr 16 1.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by We are goin up!
Every time you interfere with the market, there are unintended consequences that mean that the masses become less satisfied. Take a couple of examples with housing: Increase in Stamp Duty/Increased tax on rental profits on Buy to Let properties: Sounds great in a paper to bash BTL landlords. Unintended consequence is that rents go through the roof as a result. I work in the mortgage industry, the ONLY way that landlords can get a mortgage is if they put their rent up. It's not them being evil, it's so they can borrow. Increased rents make it harder for the tenant to save a deposit Help to Buy scheme giving interest free loans on new builds: Sounds great, doesn't it? Give out loads of really cheap mortgages to First Time Buyers providing they're new build. What's happened in reality is that these apartments are way, way overpriced. Mark my words, in five years' time these apartments will be dime a dozen and loads of property owners will be in negative equity. Leave the market alone. It works. Yes, just like the Americans
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 27 Apr 16 1.04pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stuk
Is that a f*** you to the Venezuelans?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 27 Apr 16 1.04pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Cucking Funt
Why should anyone be entitled to state-subsidised housing, when the rest of us have to pay market rents or pay the going rate on a mortgage? Because there isn't really a viable alternative except for them to be living on the streets and squatting, which ultimately would create a far bigger social problems. The question for me is why is the market rate for rent unregulated and uncontrolled, given that accommodation/shelter is an essential need. The problem is that housing benefit is effectively a state subsidy of private landlords and investments - much of which has been overlooked for decades in tax legislation (such as people being able to sell houses they've rented out in the past, that they probably didn't pay corporation tax or income tax on, and then sold without having to pay capital gains levied on the property). Probably because those people rapidly in the 80s became the key voters in swing constituencies.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.