FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > housing shortage
housing shortage
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
everyone is always talking about building new homes, but everyone seems to avoid the elephant in the room.
property developers!!
when 1 person can own 20 or more properties, then there is something wrong.
it shouldnt be allowed.
if people want to buy houses to do up, then fine, but there should be a limit to how many you can own, and sell any more.
OR, if you want to own lots of properties, then you should be a non profit housing association, offering affordable houses for rent, not full price private rented properties.
there is only so much land to build on, so we should be reclaiming the ones that people own! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I completely agree. As a young couple who rent, we're spending our lives paying someone's mortgage, only to be screwed over by landlords. House prices are now set to rise after Osborne's help to buy scheme, meaning it will be even harder for us to own our own home in the future.
Yes, housing is a business and people ought to be allowed to make money. But housing is also an essential need in life. People deserve to have a roof over their head and to be able to afford to live there. Sadly the world is run by the property owning classes, so nothing will change. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"everyone is always talking about building new homes, but everyone seems to avoid the elephant in the room.
property developers!!
when 1 person can own 20 or more properties, then there is something wrong.
it shouldnt be allowed.
if people want to buy houses to do up, then fine, but there should be a limit to how many you can own, and sell any more.
OR, if you want to own lots of properties, then you should be a non profit housing association, offering affordable houses for rent, not full price private rented properties.
there is only so much land to build on, so we should be reclaiming the ones that people own!"
When new properties are build a proportion are given across to social housing, and affordable housing to get people onto the property ladder.
I own three properties, two of which are rented out as there is not enough social housing stock. Is that wrong? No. I feel I'm doing a service.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"While we're at it let's allow the trade unions to rule the country again eh comrade...."
Whilst i think the o p post is at least naive your post has bugger all to do with topic really but hey.
I cannot understand where o p is coming from as surely if the land has houses on it and they are occupied then whats up with that.
If however land is derelict and has been so for say five years and no realistic chance of being used then councils can apply for compulsory purchase but this can take years so best try cut deal with land owner surely. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"While we're at it let's allow the trade unions to rule the country again eh comrade....
Whilst i think the o p post is at least naive your post has bugger all to do with topic really but hey"
Did you not get the slightly communist feel from the OP?...I did, hence my slightly tongue in cheek reply. Maybe its because I'm a home owner and don't see property as theft and think that people investing and making money from property is their right, but hey ho... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"While we're at it let's allow the trade unions to rule the country again eh comrade....
Whilst i think the o p post is at least naive your post has bugger all to do with topic really but hey
Did you not get the slightly communist feel from the OP?...I did, hence my slightly tongue in cheek reply. Maybe its because I'm a home owner and don't see property as theft and think that people investing and making money from property is their right, but hey ho..."
Yep, I got it as well. the old property is theft, profit is immoral bullshit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Sooner or later house prices have to adjust. Probably later now, but eventually they will.
If people are willing to take that risk and own multiple properties good luck to them. So long as they are available for people to live in I don't see the problem. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I own half a dozen properties that I rent out, I also have a part time job to top up my income as it's not the massive earner you may think. You don't just sit there and watch the bucks roll in.
Maybe 10 would make it so I wouldn't have to work and 20 definately so.
I have no pension, my houses will be my pension when I retire.
Why shouldn't i do this? I've saved up and earned it which is more than some lazy scrounging fuckers have done sitting watching sky tv and playing xbox instead of working to feed their 5 kids |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Why should it not be allowed ?
For some people, my parents included its there job or a way of saving instead of a pension.
"
Agree. it's my retirement and sons nest egg.
If you can do it and it's bloody hard in London I see no problem with it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Because of the dire state of our housing stock and the outrageous profiteering of private landlords who turned houses into overcrowded slums (it was called Rachmanism) the Labour governments of the 60's embarked on a program building affordable public housing and slum clearance.
20 years on Thatcher found a way of selling off that stock of public housing and ensuring it would not be replaced which has forced house prices up over time. (When I was a teenager/early 20s starter homes cost less than twice the average wage now its closer to 10 times average wage.)
Move on another 20 years and we are quickly back to where we were in the 50s. However todays Tory governments answer to the problem is to tax people out of council homes and force them into substandard private housing or onto the street.
Dont forget, Call me Dave says "we'r all in it together!"...
Think he's on about the shit he is dropping us in!
Would be funny if it was not so tragic  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"everyone is always talking about building new homes, but everyone seems to avoid the elephant in the room.
property developers!!
when 1 person can own 20 or more properties, then there is something wrong.
it shouldnt be allowed.
if people want to buy houses to do up, then fine, but there should be a limit to how many you can own, and sell any more.
OR, if you want to own lots of properties, then you should be a non profit housing association, offering affordable houses for rent, not full price private rented properties.
there is only so much land to build on, so we should be reclaiming the ones that people own!"
I would say the real Elephant in the room is unfettered immigration.
When Blair and Brown decided to have a laugh by "rubbing the rights nose in diversity" a housing shortage was the obvious consequence. As you rightly say THERE IS only so much land that can be built on, but with net immigration still running at around 150,000 a year, even at an average of 3 to a property that is 50,000 a year that have to be built just to stand still.
If there was no profit in owning property, who would finance them, build them, maintain them, Etc? I certainly wouldn't want any of my hard earned (and hard taxed) retirement pot to be invested for a big fat zero. So who? The government maybe? I remember too well the last time the government got involved in "social housing" in the 60's and 70's and the wreckage can still be seen today.
Bottom line is that if you want the big rain swept rock in the north Atlantic to be the land of milk and honey for the worlds waifs and strays then don't cry too loud when the chickens come home to roost.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Because of the dire state of our housing stock and the outrageous profiteering of private landlords who turned houses into overcrowded slums (it was called Rachmanism) the Labour governments of the 60's embarked on a program building affordable public housing and slum clearance.
20 years on Thatcher found a way of selling off that stock of public housing and ensuring it would not be replaced which has forced house prices up over time. (When I was a teenager/early 20s starter homes cost less than twice the average wage now its closer to 10 times average wage.)
Move on another 20 years and we are quickly back to where we were in the 50s. However todays Tory governments answer to the problem is to tax people out of council homes and force them into substandard private housing or onto the street.
Dont forget, Call me Dave says "we'r all in it together!"...
Think he's on about the shit he is dropping us in!
Would be funny if it was not so tragic "
I think most of the "Dire" propertys are the crap tower block built by Labour in the 60's & 70's As for Rachman, I'd re check your dates if I were you. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Where are all the 10s of 1,000s of Rumanians and Bulgarians going to live when they arrive?"
Your back garden, parliament square, the centre circle at Stamford bridge, pretty much anywhere they can pitch a sheet of corrugated plastic. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Fair rent act or an independent Tribunal to mediate would help..
yes that would require legislation which is unlikely and accept that there will be those who will be set against it..
but we cant go on with a situation whereby for many in our cities the cost of affordable rental properties is beyond them..
its not only sharp suited city types that keep the City functioning..
when Emergency service workers and others cant live within 60 miles of their workplace, that seems a bit daft.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why should there be a limit to how many houses people can own? It's a business. People want to make money.
Because there's not enough land left!  "
there is plenty of 'land'..
think the last time I heard the figures it was about 11% of the land that is built on..
respect there are many isolated area's where property cant be built but there's still lots of green.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think most of the "Dire" propertys are the crap tower block built by Labour in the 60's & 70's As for Rachman, I'd re check your dates if I were you."
You are entitled to your opinion about tower blocks. However I notice that you use a classic ploy when you know that what is being said is correct. Attempt to divert attention from the real point you have no answer to by questioning dates.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Why should there be a limit to how many houses people can own? It's a business. People want to make money.
Because there's not enough land left!
there is plenty of 'land'..
think the last time I heard the figures it was about 11% of the land that is built on..
respect there are many isolated area's where property cant be built but there's still lots of green.. "
Yes and its all already owned by BIG companies like TESCO...and their like  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why should there be a limit to how many houses people can own? It's a business. People want to make money.
Because there's not enough land left!
there is plenty of 'land'..
think the last time I heard the figures it was about 11% of the land that is built on..
respect there are many isolated area's where property cant be built but there's still lots of green.. "
Plenty of land |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Why should there be a limit to how many houses people can own? It's a business. People want to make money.
Because there's not enough land left!
there is plenty of 'land'..
think the last time I heard the figures it was about 11% of the land that is built on..
respect there are many isolated area's where property cant be built but there's still lots of green..
Plenty of land"
Aye, at the bottom of the sea!!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"anyone can do anything, within the law, it's called freedom, something many thousands of people have fought for and died for."
Only the stupid and greedy NEED rules or LAWS to abide by...the rest of us would be hunky dorey!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"anyone can do anything, within the law, it's called freedom, something many thousands of people have fought for and died for.
Only the stupid and greedy NEED rules or LAWS to abide by...the rest of us would be hunky dorey! "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" Attempt to divert attention from the real point you have no answer to by questioning dates."
Fundamentally the real point is whether you have a socialist/communist point of _iew.
Do you feel the market should drive the price? That people can choose where they live and what style of house to live in? Etc
Or
Should we all live in gray concrete energy efficient tower blocks with equal square footage per pound of fat? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"anyone can do anything, within the law, it's called freedom, something many thousands of people have fought for and died for.
Only the stupid and greedy NEED rules or LAWS to abide by...the rest of us would be hunky dorey! "
Try visiting Somalia and then repeating that statement! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"anyone can do anything, within the law, it's called freedom, something many thousands of people have fought for and died for.
Only the stupid and greedy NEED rules or LAWS to abide by...the rest of us would be hunky dorey!
Try visiting Somalia and then repeating that statement! "
Only the stupid and greedy NEED rules or LAWS to abide by...the rest of us would be hunky dorey! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think most of the "Dire" propertys are the crap tower block built by Labour in the 60's & 70's As for Rachman, I'd re check your dates if I were you.You are entitled to your opinion about tower blocks. However I notice that you use a classic ploy when you know that what is being said is correct. Attempt to divert attention from the real point you have no answer to by questioning dates."
Firstly questioning dates was aimed at the inference that Peter Rachman by being a slum landlord was somehow involved with the Tory party. Apart from shagging Christine Keeler around the same time as Profumo there were no other known links. It was also the Tory government in the late 50's that eventually investigated him and brought him to book.
As for a real reply from someone who was around at the time (not too far from Moston BTW) The slum clearances of the 60's was at best a double edged sword, at worst social engineering on a biblical scale. While some of the inner city properties needed demolishing there were many others that could have been easily renovated and communities kept together. I can speak from personal experience as two relatives of mine both had perfectly good houses stolen from them and demolished by Manchester city council, one was paid 48 quid and the other 52 quid in compensation for losing their home with the offer of a rented flat in a tower block as the alternative. 
I would also add that Wilsons "fair rent act" finished up taking 10's of thousands of good private rented properties out of the market only adding to the housing shortages at the time.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" Attempt to divert attention from the real point you have no answer to by questioning dates.
Fundamentally the real point is whether you have a socialist/communist point of _iew.
Do you feel the market should drive the price? That people can choose where they live and what style of house to live in? Etc
Or
Should we all live in gray concrete energy efficient tower blocks with equal square footage per pound of fat? "
Socialism and comunism are not the same things! I am a Socialist not a communist.
I believe that we should have a mixed economy where we get the best of both worlds. Its called enlightened self interest, that you are more than happy to allow wealth (and that means power) to be increasingly concentrated in a small minority at the top of the pile speaks volumes about your greed and lack of foresight.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Housing shortage?.....another legacy of the Iron Lady, hopefully wont see her kind around anymore!!!
It makes me laugh to see socialists still blame today's problems on Maggie. We had 13 years of New Labour spend 30 years of money in 13 years & then when the shit hits the fan for all the wasteful spending the socialists decide "It's all Fatcher's fault innit!" Socialism, it's a mental disease I'm sure!
This "
New Labour...
Tories in disguise! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It amazes me that anyone can blame one single party for any faults...they ALL work for the same money making organisation, they simply implement their changes and cuts in differing order and depending on who's in power, none of them listen to the common person, none of them give a shit as long as we pay our taxes like good subjects...fkn capitalists!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"everyone is always talking about building new homes, but everyone seems to avoid the elephant in the room.
property developers!!
"
No I think you'll find the elephant in the room is the fact that people won't stop breeding. That's the issue and the cause of most of our problems at present. But it's political suicide to say so of course. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
There are around 920,000 empty properties in the UK.
One solution to the housing shortage would be to make landlords either develop these, possibly with a small grant or, if they are beyond cost effective repair, demolish them and re - build these properties. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Socialism has failed the world over in so many different countries time & time again. Basically it destroys personal ambition, enterprise & aspiration. What is the point of working hard to better yourself when a socialist government will take it all off you anyway. Socialism is the politics of envy & socialists see it as their right to take everything off people that have worked hard & just spend it as they see fit. Helping the poor & needy is a noble aspiration & as a right-winger that's what I would like to see. But socialists make the poor dependent on the state, with no way of getting out & the only way they can improve their lot is to keep voting Labour for the biggest increases in welfare. Thatis why socialism is pure evil. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Re- introduce the Fair Rents Act in a more manageable form, start to actively build social housing on a major scale ( which would show a REAL reduction in unemployment), enforce the compulsory purchase of the near 100,000 empty properties in England and Wales.
That will do for a start |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Re- introduce the Fair Rents Act in a more manageable form, start to actively build social housing on a major scale ( which would show a REAL reduction in unemployment), enforce the compulsory purchase of the near 100,000 empty properties in England and Wales.
That will do for a start"
But that is evil socialism (according to bertiebollox)...
Much better to have 100,000 homes sitting empty and 10's of thousands homeless, its the capitalist way...
And really we should scrap the NHS and make health a for profit business! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
There are 900,000 empty homes in this country not 100,000. I fail to see why it is a right wing policy to leave them empty. It is not, it is just that people have property rights, it is the cornerstone of any capitalist economy. But common sense suggests that these houses should be put to use. No a Socialist would want to see the property confiscated, whereas a right-winger would want to see an incentive. Lefties use sticks & right-wingers use carrots.
As for rent-capping, a lot of Landlords would not be able to service their mortgages & would go bust. The private sector would not invest in housing & government can't afford to do so, so the idea has massive problems.
As for the NHS, it's inefficient & jam-packed full of socialists running their little empires on fantastic salaries & resist change at every turn. That's why the 1,200 deaths at Stafford was the result of Socialist unions. Britain deserves a better system, like they have in France or Germany, or Singapore. Nobody copies the NHS because it's a crap way of doing things. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I didn't actually advocate rent capping, a Fair rent board isn't the same as a rent cap. You will have to show me a credible link to the 900,000 empty homes, I'm just going on the Newsnight article they aired a few months ago on BBC2 which stated that there were around 100,000 empty properties that have no title and could be purchased by government for refurbishment.
Fair Rent boards work very well in Germany and done so years. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *inaTitzTV/TS
over a year ago
Titz Towers, North Notts |
One thing I've noticed is that quite often when a site is proposed for housing, the locals start a campaign against it. This seems to be whether it is on farm land or on an old Colliery site. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
She was the best & we need someone like her now. Not always right, especially over privatisation of utilities & transport, but she led with conviction of what she thought was best for Britain, whereas the Labour party always put the party before country every time. She hated Socialism which was her best characteristic. If we'd have stayed with Thatcherite policies 2 things we would have today. No debt crisis & plenty of housing because she wouldn't have let all these immigrants in. In 1979 25% of all housing was state owned, she wanted people to stand on their own two feet & have an incentive to work & get on in life. Then B.Liar & Brown came along & made 7 million people dependent on hand-outs with the presumption that they'd always gratefully vote Labour. Now THAT is pure evil. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
".............
there is only so much land to build on, so we should be reclaiming the ones that people own!"
That's not actually the case. There's LOADS of land it's just that much of it is close to people who don't want additional houses near them reducing their price of their nest egg.
Then there's the bits which organisations like the Campaign to Save the Lesser Spotted Tapeworm insist must be preserved because life on earth will come to an immediate end if we don't keep them as they are.
For some reason it always seems to be those who have v those who don't. The ones who have have the lawyers and the money. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why should there be a limit to how many houses people can own? It's a business. People want to make money.
Because there's not enough land left!
there is plenty of 'land'..
think the last time I heard the figures it was about 11% of the land that is built on..
respect there are many isolated area's where property cant be built but there's still lots of green..
Yes and its all already owned by BIG companies like TESCO...and their like "
interested to know what percentage is owned by such...
do you have any numbers on the actual percentage..? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Lets see what other blunders the Tories make after they have admitted to borrowing an extra £150 billion because they got it all wrong. People need to look at the history of this country's debt and GDP. They will see the truth about the Tories...Higher unemployment, rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, the way this government are going, we will be a third world country soon |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"She was the best & we need someone like her now. Not always right, especially over privatisation of utilities & transport, but she led with conviction of what she thought was best for Britain, whereas the Labour party always put the party before country every time. She hated Socialism which was her best characteristic. If we'd have stayed with Thatcherite policies 2 things we would have today. No debt crisis & plenty of housing because she wouldn't have let all these immigrants in. In 1979 25% of all housing was state owned, she wanted people to stand on their own two feet & have an incentive to work & get on in life. Then B.Liar & Brown came along & made 7 million people dependent on hand-outs with the presumption that they'd always gratefully vote Labour. Now THAT is pure evil. "
think you will find that Blair both carried on and expanded Thatchers policies..... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Good points Onny,
Also it seems that population growth is sort of an official way to get growth in the economy. But with the world population heading for 9 billion in 2050 there will be sky high food prices, a reliance on GM crops & intensive factory farming putting animals in concentration camp type conditions. We need less people in the UK, ethical farming & conditions for animals & no GM crops. We also need to be 100% self-sustainable by producing enough food to eat made in this country. With a model like that we also wouldn't have a housing shortage. The main problem is that you would shrink the economy doing so & if the party in power doesn't have a boom just before election time, they won't get another term. All false booms now, like a junkie getting a fix of heroin. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Why should there be a limit to how many houses people can own? It's a business. People want to make money.
Because there's not enough land left!
there is plenty of 'land'..
think the last time I heard the figures it was about 11% of the land that is built on..
respect there are many isolated area's where property cant be built but there's still lots of green..
Yes and its all already owned by BIG companies like TESCO...and their like
interested to know what percentage is owned by such...
do you have any numbers on the actual percentage..?"
That would depend on YOUR _iew of what a "big company" was; railways, supermarkets, deveopements, roads and councils...not to mention low level landlords!
The % is very high in fact!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Lets see what other blunders the Tories make after they have admitted to borrowing an extra £150 billion because they got it all wrong. People need to look at the history of this country's debt and GDP. They will see the truth about the Tories...Higher unemployment, rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, the way this government are going, we will be a third world country soon "
Social mobility is better under the Tories than Labour as Socialism traps people on welfare for life. We are becoming a third world country again because the EU is Socialist & makes our laws. We need Nigel Farage to sort this mess out by telling the EU to fuck off. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ndykayMan
over a year ago
Falkirk |
"There are around 920,000 empty properties in the UK.
One solution to the housing shortage would be to make landlords either develop these, possibly with a small grant or, if they are beyond cost effective repair, demolish them and re - build these properties."
An actual sensible idea!!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why should there be a limit to how many houses people can own? It's a business. People want to make money.
Because there's not enough land left!
there is plenty of 'land'..
think the last time I heard the figures it was about 11% of the land that is built on..
respect there are many isolated area's where property cant be built but there's still lots of green..
Yes and its all already owned by BIG companies like TESCO...and their like
interested to know what percentage is owned by such...
do you have any numbers on the actual percentage..?
That would depend on YOUR _iew of what a "big company" was; railways, supermarkets, deveopements, roads and councils...not to mention low level landlords!
The % is very high in fact!
"
Hence why I said 'by such', not going to name every single group or organisation..
how high? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Lets see what other blunders the Tories make after they have admitted to borrowing an extra £150 billion because they got it all wrong. People need to look at the history of this country's debt and GDP. They will see the truth about the Tories...Higher unemployment, rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, the way this government are going, we will be a third world country soon
Social mobility is better under the Tories than Labour as Socialism traps people on welfare for life. We are becoming a third world country again because the EU is Socialist & makes our laws. We need Nigel Farage to sort this mess out by telling the EU to fuck off."
We might need something but not Nigel Farage he wouldn't cope with real responsibility. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Leave the EU and long term we would be in massive trouble, manufacturers move to lower-cost EU countries, tax avoidance would be massive, trade which is worth £400bn per year would drop, massive unemployment. We would become an isolated state. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"everyone is always talking about building new homes, but everyone seems to avoid the elephant in the room.
property developers!!
when 1 person can own 20 or more properties, then there is something wrong.
it shouldnt be allowed.
if people want to buy houses to do up, then fine, but there should be a limit to how many you can own, and sell any more.
OR, if you want to own lots of properties, then you should be a non profit housing association, offering affordable houses for rent, not full price private rented properties.
there is only so much land to build on, so we should be reclaiming the ones that people own!"
Are you kidding we do live in a free country don't we |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Leave the EU and long term we would be in massive trouble, manufacturers move to lower-cost EU countries, tax avoidance would be massive, trade which is worth £400bn per year would drop, massive unemployment. We would become an isolated state."
Absolute BS I'm afraid. Stay in the EU & we will have huge problems. Trade would grow because we could trade freely with other countries again & we are the natural head of a potentially massive trading block called the Commonwealth where those countries are enjoying decent growth. Historically Britain has the greatest tradition of trading, which was ruined by Socialism. In 1945 we had 25% of all the world's exports but the Union brothers soon saw to that. Also 5 Labour Governments have all ended in financial disaster & the EU is run by Communists. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Leave the EU and long term we would be in massive trouble, manufacturers move to lower-cost EU countries, tax avoidance would be massive, trade which is worth £400bn per year would drop, massive unemployment. We would become an isolated state.
Absolute BS I'm afraid. Stay in the EU & we will have huge problems. Trade would grow because we could trade freely with other countries again & we are the natural head of a potentially massive trading block called the Commonwealth where those countries are enjoying decent growth. Historically Britain has the greatest tradition of trading, which was ruined by Socialism. In 1945 we had 25% of all the world's exports but the Union brothers soon saw to that. Also 5 Labour Governments have all ended in financial disaster & the EU is run by Communists. "
Definitely wrong, if we leave the EU, the rules on trade and tax would be written for us, too dangerous. We export at the moment 52% of trade and services to the EU, if that figure was trading to China Japan etc we could be ok. Big companies would also pack up and leave to EU countries, leaving the EU is frightening to think about. The Yanks are talking about a free trade area with the EU, would not benefit from it.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" 1,200 deaths at Stafford was the result of Socialist unions. "
Ah so it was the unions who put in place the top heavy managerial system which was only interested in ticking boxes rather than looking after the patients..
the same managerial system which actually reduced staffing numbers to such levels whereby proper care could not be given..
which led to some staff speaking out but then who were sanctioned by the same system they had put in..
there are good and not so good sides to all Political structures and systems. hence why they both want the middle ground..
but to blame the Unions for the deaths at Stafford..
planet zog thinking no less..
even the worst of either sides spin doctors wouldn't look at that as credible...
why do you? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"Why should there be a limit to how many houses people can own? It's a business. People want to make money.
Because there's not enough land left!
there is plenty of 'land'..
think the last time I heard the figures it was about 11% of the land that is built on..
respect there are many isolated area's where property cant be built but there's still lots of green..
Yes and its all already owned by BIG companies like TESCO...and their like
interested to know what percentage is owned by such...
do you have any numbers on the actual percentage..?"
The supermarkets hide behind front property companies because they know a whiff of their interest getting out will double or treble the price. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Social mobility is better under the Tories than Labour as Socialism traps people on welfare for life. We are becoming a third world country again because the EU is Socialist & makes our laws. We need Nigel Farage to sort this mess out by telling the EU to fuck off."
Actually I believe that every independent study has show that there is a direct link between the growth in capitalism and reduction is social mobility.
As for the EU being bad for us I would point out that when the Euro was first launched we got 1.69 eu to the pound we now get 1.20. We have a core of anti europhobes who constantly claim that the EU and everything to do with it is bad for us when patently this is not the case.
God help this country if ever they get their way and pull us out of the EU. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"Rubbish. If I want properties ill buy them. So long as I pay my taxes there's nothing wrong with that. "
Provided that's the deal, that's OK.
Unfortunately so many self-styled landlords DON'T pay their taxes, DON'T pay any attention to health and safety laws and so on.
Someone else mentioned Peter Rachman - his spirit lives on out there. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Rubbish. If I want properties ill buy them. So long as I pay my taxes there's nothing wrong with that.
Provided that's the deal, that's OK.
Unfortunately so many self-styled landlords DON'T pay their taxes, DON'T pay any attention to health and safety laws and so on.
Someone else mentioned Peter Rachman - his spirit lives on out there."
have dealt with some of these 'landlords', some whom are happy to have as many people crammed into unsafe and dangerous conditions as they can get away with..
death traps, simple as.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Why should there be a limit to how many houses people can own? It's a business. People want to make money.
Because there's not enough land left!
there is plenty of 'land'..
think the last time I heard the figures it was about 11% of the land that is built on..
respect there are many isolated area's where property cant be built but there's still lots of green..
Yes and its all already owned by BIG companies like TESCO...and their like
interested to know what percentage is owned by such...
do you have any numbers on the actual percentage..?
That would depend on YOUR _iew of what a "big company" was; railways, supermarkets, deveopements, roads and councils...not to mention low level landlords!
The % is very high in fact!
Hence why I said 'by such', not going to name every single group or organisation..
how high?"
Aww...you're brand new!
You want me to pull a percenage out from some survey, paid for and presented by our own government...??? Its hardly going to factual, honest or even close to true!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
To be honest Bertie, when you invoked the name Nigel Farage as the cure to all our ills you instanty lost any credibility you may have built up and took a giant leap into bonkerz. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"Rubbish. If I want properties ill buy them. So long as I pay my taxes there's nothing wrong with that.
Provided that's the deal, that's OK.
Unfortunately so many self-styled landlords DON'T pay their taxes, DON'T pay any attention to health and safety laws and so on.
Someone else mentioned Peter Rachman - his spirit lives on out there.
have dealt with some of these 'landlords', some whom are happy to have as many people crammed into unsafe and dangerous conditions as they can get away with..
death traps, simple as.."
Anyone who doubts the above should visit Govanhill* on the southside of Glasgow.
What's worse (if possible) is that many of those being put at risk are immigrants (illegal and legal) and they are being put in danger by their own countrymen.
* other slum areas are available. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Leave the EU and long term we would be in massive trouble, manufacturers move to lower-cost EU countries, tax avoidance would be massive, trade which is worth £400bn per year would drop, massive unemployment. We would become an isolated state.
Absolute BS I'm afraid. Stay in the EU & we will have huge problems. Trade would grow because we could trade freely with other countries again & we are the natural head of a potentially massive trading block called the Commonwealth where those countries are enjoying decent growth. Historically Britain has the greatest tradition of trading, which was ruined by Socialism. In 1945 we had 25% of all the world's exports but the Union brothers soon saw to that. Also 5 Labour Governments have all ended in financial disaster & the EU is run by Communists.
Definitely wrong, if we leave the EU, the rules on trade and tax would be written for us, too dangerous. We export at the moment 52% of trade and services to the EU, if that figure was trading to China Japan etc we could be ok. Big companies would also pack up and leave to EU countries, leaving the EU is frightening to think about. The Yanks are talking about a free trade area with the EU, would not benefit from it.
"
Trade between the other EU countries and Britain is about equal
Do you really think they would want to loose the uk market , we can have trade agreements without political union
As you say EU and USA in talks for non tariff trade agreement no political union just a trade agreement |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"............
Trade between the other EU countries and Britain is about equal
Do you really think they would want to loose the uk market , we can have trade agreements without political union
..............."
CAN have, yes - but why would they?
What can Britain offer that they can't get already on mainland Europe/ EU countries? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"............
Trade between the other EU countries and Britain is about equal
Do you really think they would want to loose the uk market , we can have trade agreements without political union
...............
CAN have, yes - but why would they?
What can Britain offer that they can't get already on mainland Europe/ EU countries?"
because they export billions of euros worth of goods to UK
There are trade only agreements between EU and other countries in place at the moment |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"............
Trade between the other EU countries and Britain is about equal
Do you really think they would want to loose the uk market , we can have trade agreements without political union
...............
CAN have, yes - but why would they?
What can Britain offer that they can't get already on mainland Europe/ EU countries?
because they export billions of euros worth of goods to UK
............"
Would that stop? Would Brits stop buying Mercs and BMWs? French wines and cheeses? Belgian chocolates?
I doubt it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"............
Trade between the other EU countries and Britain is about equal
Do you really think they would want to loose the uk market , we can have trade agreements without political union
...............
CAN have, yes - but why would they?
What can Britain offer that they can't get already on mainland Europe/ EU countries?
because they export billions of euros worth of goods to UK
............
Would that stop? Would Brits stop buying Mercs and BMWs? French wines and cheeses? Belgian chocolates?
No and why should it and we would export to the EU without tariffs
I doubt it."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
".................
Oh to and anybody still brain washed by the trade myth. I will say again, look up the "Rotterdam effect""
But read it in conjunction with the 2005 report from HM Revenue & Customs, specifically about the Rotterdam Effect.
It's freely available on the internet for anyone to read and is also why nearly all trade reports give revised figures that take into account the Rotterdam (aka Antwerp) Effect.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Because of the dire state of our housing stock and the outrageous profiteering of private landlords who turned houses into overcrowded slums (it was called Rachmanism) the Labour governments of the 60's embarked on a program building affordable public housing and slum clearance.
20 years on Thatcher found a way of selling off that stock of public housing and ensuring it would not be replaced which has forced house prices up over time. (When I was a teenager/early 20s starter homes cost less than twice the average wage now its closer to 10 times average wage.)
Move on another 20 years and we are quickly back to where we were in the 50s. However todays Tory governments answer to the problem is to tax people out of council homes and force them into substandard private housing or onto the street.
Dont forget, Call me Dave says "we'r all in it together!"...
Think he's on about the shit he is dropping us in!
Would be funny if it was not so tragic "
The government subsided rent with housing benefit allowing people to rent from private landlords. My council property rent is £101 per week. The same house rented privately would be 4 times that |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"..........
The government subsided rent with housing benefit allowing people to rent from private landlords. My council property rent is £101 per week. The same house rented privately would be 4 times that"
And the private landlord will usually be using that £400 a week to service a mortgage. That property will (usually) be increasing in value so the landlord is in a win-win situation.
Before anyone points it out, I'm aware it's exactly the situation I'm in myself 'cept I don't have mortgages on any of my properties.
In case anyone find the scenario in my first para familiar, it exactly what we gave MPs such a kicking for a few years back. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *B9 QueenWoman
over a year ago
Over the rainbow, under the bridge |
"everyone is always talking about building new homes, but everyone seems to avoid the elephant in the room.
property developers!!
when 1 person can own 20 or more properties, then there is something wrong.
it shouldnt be allowed.
if people want to buy houses to do up, then fine, but there should be a limit to how many you can own, and sell any more.
OR, if you want to own lots of properties, then you should be a non profit housing association, offering affordable houses for rent, not full price private rented properties.
there is only so much land to build on, so we should be reclaiming the ones that people own!"
I think the main problem is people buying property and then not doing anything with it in the hope that it will rise in value. So many empty properties and so many in desperate need. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"
I think the main problem is people buying property and then not doing anything with it in the hope that it will rise in value. So many empty properties and so many in desperate need."
Or buying land for the same (lack of) purpose.
You'd have thought that the UK slump in house prices and what's been going on in Greece, Spain and Eire would have been enough of a lesson for them but no, they want to start all over again with HMG mortgage deposit subsidies and Boris banging on in favour of a Stamp Duty reduction, presumably so more Russians can buy houses they seldom live in in London. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Why should there be a limit to how many houses people can own? It's a business. People want to make money.
Because there's not enough land left! "
There is lots of land left to build on. They are called land banks and are held by large building companies who are riding out the recession before building on them. A lot of this land was sold to them by the last government. I have no opinion on this, just stating a fact. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
We rent privately as we have no choice. We don't fit the need for social housing yet can't afford to buy. We Havnt got the required 40% deposit and one of us is self employed so getting a mortgage is impossible. We have tried. So without buy to let landlords we would be in a real problem. Yes our rent is high intact prob double a mortgage or renting social housing. And yes sometimes its a struggle. But what other option do we have. We have a lovely house and when the boiler breaks then its not our cost. Not ideal but nothing in life is. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"We rent privately as we have no choice. We don't fit the need for social housing yet can't afford to buy. We Havnt got the required 40% deposit and one of us is self employed so getting a mortgage is impossible. We have tried. So without buy to let landlords we would be in a real problem. Yes our rent is high intact prob double a mortgage or renting social housing. And yes sometimes its a struggle. But what other option do we have. We have a lovely house and when the boiler breaks then its not our cost. Not ideal but nothing in life is."
So will an HMG deposit guarantee make a difference to your situation?
Will it just encourage sellers to bump prices up on the grounds that if (when?) it all goes tits-up again, the Treasury will take the hit? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
and as many as I can afford 
