Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Debbiebegood

New Members
  • Posts

    280
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Debbiebegood

  1. got it wrong, I think not, I think he knows exactly what rates are, were, going to be.

    it seems to me they release statements to control markets.

    I'll work on facts rather than guess work thank you very much.

    the bank of England will raise rates the month after the us.

    it's that simple.

    Spot on.
  2. yep...

    Interestingly all you need are about 10 strong willed council tenants to write letters and deliver leaflets and those tenants will control the `sheeple`. I`ve seen it with mine own eyes!

    Tenants must do what they can as individuals and as a group.

    And anyway, where`s my subsidy!!?

    Great post.Everyday I witness this sheeple mentality.

    As far as I am concerned you never qualified for the subsidy, hence you have been paying above market rate for your Council rent especially considering the quality and quantity of your rented Council property.

    Not to mention that you might have neighbours there who want to share their misery with rhe rest of your estate so they never clean up their own place,leave dirt, rubbish and grease in communal areas,etc. They will always cause the trouble to their neighbours (for that they will have "courage), but not for the corrupt regime.

    I hope that you do not have much trouble in there with them, but the regime will not stop even after we are on our knees and begging for food hence these "policies","initiatives"...

  3. Just got the councils magazine and newsletter.

    The council is now trying to get us out by offering to help us find housing on the `open market`.

    Yeah....that`s going to work innit..

    They are going all the way and will never stop until people unite.

    Unfortunately,sheeple would rather be envious of others who got a few breadcrumbs more.

    Only multimillionares (read - biggest crooks that walk over corpses and that is how they got their money) will be able to surf this tidal wave of corruption, thievery and total society destruction.

    Only they and slaves will be allowed in the new world order and those slaves will sustain the slavery to infinity by fighting each other in order just to hold their heads above the water for short periods only.

    After all, what was the most enduring regime throughout history? - Slavery because of the above very simple and highly effective strategy.

    Everything good from Capitalism and Socialism has been destroyed over the past 20 years.

    Everything bad from from Capitalism and Socialism has been adopted by succesive regimes for the past 20 years.

  4. They're not cheating.....IT'S FRAUD, A CRIMINAL ACT

    Yes. It was obvious from the begining of MMR and the whole hype about it that it was - yet another farce.

    None of these politicians/banksters/VI's would lend their own money to people who can only afford (through other loans/credit cards) only 5% deposit and who moan about 2% stamp duty (they can hardly afford even that small amount.

    Would anyone sane lend their OWN money to the above people after asking them idiotic questions whether they can afford the repayments after buying the coffee/steak/gym membership?

    Of course not.

    This thievery can only happen with their "invention" of electronic money and we are all on hook for any failure of "hard working home owners" to pay off their mortgages.

  5. Divide and rule? Surely making everyone suffer equally is not divide and rule. Labour divided and ruled by giving some cheap housing and letting others have to pay a fortune. People who have decent cheap housing often don't care about the rest, now they will.

    Why you did not apply for Social housing?

    It is usually c**p and dangerous and it has been like that for many decades. You would have to put up with that together with your family for many years.

    Did you live on the Social housing estate?

    Let's instead pick on priviliged parasites who got cheap housing guaranteed * endless subsidies with forever HPI by their government mates.

    This issue reminds me of European directive regarding "unfair" discrimination of male drivers who pay more for car insurance than women.

    So, they directed that women should pay more in order to reach higher car insurance for men drivers-instead of men's car insurance to get lower in order to equal women's car insurance.

    There are no positive aspecta of this policy whichever way you look at this.

    We will all be paying ever higher prices for rentals and property purchases. Social justice was never the agenda of these regimes. everything they do is for HPI which will benefit their landlord mates.

  6. So do you support somebody earning £50k a year getting a social housing allocation while somebody in genuine need of it on minimum wage doesn't?

    It's like somebody who's not Ill sleeping in an NHS bed while sick people wait on trolleys in the corridors of the hospital.

    This issue is not straightforward as I said before.

    1) People in dire Social needs are housed and partially helped with benefits to cover their rents.

    They do not sleep on the streets.

    2) Aim of this policy is only to squezze more money from the population: Majority of £50k people will be pushed to buy their very expensive Council property (even after £100k discount) so they will not vacate these premises for the ones who are worse off.

    3) If majority of £50k people vacates their Council property due to poor value they will get for their "market rate" rent, the majority of Council estates will turn into even worse gettoes. Not to mention that they will now compete with the rentiers.who pay "market rate" hence the rents will go up for everybody.

    4) Next move will be for the Government to introduce £20k treshold. (We all know how Governments policies that ensure "justice, fairness" to reward " hard work",etc- become distorted).

    5) What should happen with breeding families that have many children and receive so much in benefits that they cross the treshold, so the Government pays itself higher rent?

    6) This is yet another policy of divide and rule aimed to destroy what is left of the middle class.

    Once middle class is gone, the age of pharaons is upon us (if not already).

    As can be seen from the above, outcome of this policy will result in higher rents and higher property prices (despite Right to buy discount, prices are still double) and more desperate slaves who will compete for your and my job more vigorously.

    Life is not just black and white.It has many shades of grey.

    There are other facets: what if £50k person has outfoings (children/debt) that income per head of the household reaches the low treshold?

    What should be that treshold income in above case?

    What if that person loses the "highly" paid job of £50k? Does he then go back to the "subsidised" rent?

    In London, £50k for a couple with 2 kids is not that much. If they live frugally, how much can they save in a year after living/rental/mortgage costs? - That should be the measure of success in life, rather than working for decades to just survive.

  7. I'm not against subsidised housing I'm just pointing out that it exists :)

    I've said several times on this thread that I'm in favour of building enough that is's available to anybody who wants it. I'd also bring in a LVT to drive better allocation of land in the private sector (which should lead to cheaper rents for everybody).

    You misunderstand my arguments because we're talking about different things. I'm talking about cost of capital and the refocusing of the currently limited social housing provision towards those who need it most for the benefit of society as whole, you're moaning because your current preferential access to a subsidised rent might be removed because you earn too much. I appreciate that the removal of this subsidy may be a blow to you, but arguing that it wasn't a subsidy anyway isn't going to help.

    I am not affected by this removal of "subsidy".

    I am mortgage free in my own home. No debts of any kind.

    People are fighting for scraps nowdays like drowning rats and I hate that. We should better all focus our anger at VI's who are subsidised in so many ways to the tune of trillions of pounds.

    This issue is like bedroom tax and similar schemes that "save" negligible amounts of money, but are on the other hand very useful to the regime to point a finger in the wrong direction so the lynch mob's mentality can be unleashed.

    Anyhow, UK is not drowning in more than 7trillion £ debt because of Social security benefits including their own housing (which was not built for decades in meaningful amounts and quality).

  8. In two words, No.

    What you should be asking is why the Private Rented Sector is so appallingly dire that social housing tenancy is now looked as a golden ticket?

    I can remember a time when you would be laughed at for even considering a social tenancy. I had an Uncle once.His greatest ambition? To get a Council house. And this is when new build semi's were being built and for sale for a few thousand pounds. Buying your own home in the 70's was a 'no brainer.'

    Have you ever watched "How To Get a Council House' and looked at some of the wretched, mouldy badly maintained housing being offered in the social housing sector with the added bonus of potentially violent and anti-social neighbours?

    Most of you would refuse any offer from a Council, even if you were bidding on them (which most or all of you aren't).

    I don't envy lottery winners, because I have never done the lottery.

    The gains made by home owners could be described as 'good fortune.' As someone well remarked (either on here or on Twitter) was that 'good fortune generally doesn't get shared around much.'

    +1
  9. It doesn't matter whether you call it a subsidy or not. Arguing over the meaning of words is pointless.

    What is inarguable is that social tenants have a housing situation which is much better than than those in the private sector. A private renter can't choose to become a social tenant. The best they can do is shared ownership, with a six-figure entry free. The government has handed out golden tickets to those who meet the criteria.

    Everyone needs a house. But we also need to run society fairly. It's almost unbelievable that just by giving the needy decent housing we've given them a standard of living out of reach of vast swathes of people who are supposedly doing well for themselves.

    Let's say that Social housing is subsidised (what is highly questionable) hence the rent is "low".

    (In my opinion it is too high, considering the incomes of vast majority of tenants+awful quality of accomodation and small size)

    BTL's insanely high rents are surely much more subsidised by the Government. (Also poor quality of accomodation and small size).

    Anyhow, you argue (together with Spectrum and others), that the "subsidy" is removed from Social

    Housing. The only fair solution is to remove both subsidies then, not just the Social one.

    You guys would rather have Social rents increased to reach "market rate",rather than to lower "market" rates to reach Social rents?

    If the foreign criminal moves into your area and launders his money by paying 15 times more than he should for his accomodation/rental, should your Council rent increase by the similar amount because all of a sudden your rent looks "subsidised"?

  10. yes, but its not subsidised in any form, so they cheaper rents, have you thought that the problem is that private rents are to expensive and would you not be better off if there were rental caps in or longer rental agreements? if yes then you want the social housing and lower HA housing to use against the government to think about ways to reduce rents. If you agree to higher social Ha rents then you agree with the high private rents and should not complain that rents are high.

    If you take away lower rents then there is no argument for any of the above in the private markets.

    Spot on!
  11. It help justify private rents, if socials rent are market prices, its less headache for the government, so private renters are being hit more in rents, increasing social and HA rents is a bad idea, Having low rents in social housing puts pressure on the government to do something about the private rental market, and unsetting landlords, why not choose the easy route increase social rents to market level to justify private rents.

    So everyone that rents is worse off while landlords are better off.

    +1
  12. Not at all. I repeatedly asked what you meant in order to try understanding it. I could have just ignored replies like most do when it doesn't suit their perspective, but didn't. And I cut out the quote to save space on the page, but still answered it in the 2nd paragraph. If I wasn't clear then I thought social housing was for society, not just the poor, because land is a resource nobody worked to create. As you implied earlier scarcity is artificial, so there's no reason beyond favouritism that we shouldn't all benefit from it. Applying Osborne economics to an already corrupt system, however just it may seem at first glance, won't help. Definitely not the poor. Anyhow this exchange has become pointless for both of us. Good luck with your thoughts.

    +1
  13. I dont think an income of £30,000 a year puts you anywhere near the top 10% of earners

    http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/mar/25/uk-incomes-how-salary-compare

    Is this not just another disguised tax on middle income earners from a chancellor who already has form in this area from his gerrymandering of the 40% tax band in the last Parliament (incidentally an electoral open goal that Labour spectacularly managed to miss in 2015) ? Wont the effect just be to make many of those effected simply drop their hours so that they bring their earnings in just under the limit. As a consequence it is probable that very little housing will released and the states tax take will go down. Not that Osborne cares because his aim is to score a few political points, pacify those afflicted with 'social housing envy' and win plaudits from the media. It is certainly not going to tackle Britains housing problems or even to provide that many extra homes for the poor. .

    +1
  14. As a start I think it's fair to say that somebody working full time and earning a salary of £17k has a greater need than somebody with a £170k salary. Roughly speaking we can come up with a scale of need that puts the £170k guy towards the top of the scale in the "I can look after myself, thanks" category, and the £17k guy at the other end in the "could do with a little help, thanks" category. Is than OK as a starting point?

    Sure, we need to build more social housing, but i'm not going to shed a tear for people on £40k plus (a top 10% salary in the UK) having to sort out their own housing arrangements so that their current social housing provision can be allocated to those in the lower 90% of earners.

    So where is the cut off which defines "greater" or "greatest" need?

    How much income it has to be per person of the household to be considered in above "needs? Salary on its own is definetly not a proper yardstick.

    In regards to "subsidy" issue, it is in majority of cases Council tenants who subsidise the Government, considering that majority of social housing is decades old.

    If their rents were truly "not for profit", Council tenants' rents would only consist of sevice and maintenance charges only.

    Not to mention that the Government -being the biggest landlord can therefore charge lower rents and build more cheaply than huge majority of private landlords.

    Makes you wonder where did all the monies from "Right to buy" dissapeared.Definetly not into new social housing, otherwise they could have easily built one new flat for one sold.

  15. As a start I think it's fair to say that somebody working full time and earning a salary of £17k has a greater need than somebody with a £170k salary. Roughly speaking we can come up with a scale of need that puts the £170k guy towards the top of the scale in the "I can look after myself, thanks" category, and the £17k guy at the other end in the "could do with a little help, thanks" category. Is than OK as a starting point?

    Sure, we need to build more social housing, but i'm not going to shed a tear for people on £40k plus (a top 10% salary in the UK) having to sort out their own housing arrangements so that their current social housing provision can be allocated to those in the lower 90% of earners.

    So where is the cut off which defines "greater" or "greatest" need?

    How much income it has to be per person of the household to be considered in above "needs? Salary on its own is definetly not a proper yardstick.

    In regards to "subsidy" issue, it is in majority of cases Council tenants who subsidise the Government, considering that majority of social housing is decades old.

    If their rents were truly "not for profit", Council tenants' rents would only consist of sevice and maintenance charges only.

    Not to mention that the Government -being the biggest landlord can therefore charge lower rents and build more cheaply than huge majority of private landlords.

    Makes you wonder where did all the monies from "Right to buy" dissapeared.Definetly not into new social housing, otherwise they could have easily built one new flat for one sold.

  16. Ideally there'd be enough social housing for anybody who wanted it.

    Given that there isn't I don't have a problem in reserving it for those with the greatest need. I also don't look down on people who live on council estates, especially as all of their houses are bigger than mine :)

    Please define the "greatest need".

    Should all existing Council housing be turned into getthos before they are razed down by "developers" subsidised by Con regime?

    The more people pay these insanely high "market rents", the higher is the cost of housing for all of us.

    The very same applies with insanely high house prices. The more there are willing slaves to work longer and for less money whilst at the same time the very same willing slaves can borrow greater and greater liar loans, the worst it is for eveyone else.

    There are so many facets to this discussion.

    "Market rate" does not imply that it is truly a market rate because of all kinds of government subsidies. Also,Business rates are set by the Councils' penpushers, presumably the same will be with the residential rents.We all know how high business rates are destroying businesses because these "rates" have nothing to do with real world economics.

    What a sad world:

    People from the "Rich country" in 21st century high-tech world finds it luxurious to live in dilapitated (and dirty and poorly built) shoebox sized social housing built a half century ago.

    Not to mention the low quality and criminal choice of locations for new buillds.

    Not to mention the quality and size of the rest of U.K.'s housing stock.

    All the above shows what U.K. has been reduced to (including reduced criteria of what good quality of life actually is - by the sheeple) by successive governments.

  17. Your VI is massively colouring your view of this, leaving you clutching at straw(men) :)

    Closing your access to a social housing provision intended for the poor because you're not poor isn't a tax.

    In our tax system high earners do pay more because they pay more tax. Personally I favour wealth rather than income taxes, but I don't think it would be constructive to get into that here.

    Please define how "poor" someone needs to be in order to live in Social housing. Maybe "dirt poor" might be more to your liking. That will make you feel much more superior when you pass by the Council estate.

    If it is such privilige and high quality of life to live in the Council estate, then get in there and have some taste, whilst at the same time your whole rent goes to ALMO (private company subsidised by the taxpayer whose managers drive brand new BMW's, Mercs and 4x4's and have no clue about how to repair/maintain anything and always find excuse for not spending the money on repairs which they are supposed to do in return for receiving the FULL amount of rent).

    This is yet another example from Gidiots divide and rule strategy which obviously works great with sheeple judging by the numerous posts on this forum.

  18. You seem to have missed something:

    homepage.png#

    Please, if you could enlighten us to what there wont be a HPC when it's blindingly obvious we are in the middle of one then I am all ears.

    My savings and investments are 30% up on house prices ( ignoring London where I have no desire to live ).

    The problem are peoples wages and the cost of living now. They've made the crash worse now with their crazy schemes so we should now expect another nominal fall IMHO.

    You can continue to live in the dont think for yourself world if you like.

    There is one thing that we all forgot- computers (that keep track of all the real and unreal debts + invent a new debt every second for willing slaves) + endless supply of willimg slaves both foreign and indigenous who are willing to work longer, harder and for smaller salary (than you or me) and sacrifice everything just to get that mortgage on the shoebox sized pigstail which they have to renovate on loans backed up by you and me.

    Slavery has been the longest surviving system because slaves will compete agressively with one another to get nicer looking shackles.

    How can we compete wih them? It is a herd in full stampede and they are pushing the whole civilisation into the abyss, and we are stuck in the middle of it.

    I will not work for the low salary they get, and at the same time I cannot buy insane priced property which they will buy and outbid me thanks to big daddy's (government's) bank guarantie with my money.

    Considering the above, this time it is - really different.

    I am extremely dissapointed and upset, but I have to admit that they won.

    I bet that none of them even dreamt of such an easy victory.

  19. By the same kind of logic we must also be massively overspending on defense ; since we have the fifth largest military budget in the world despite having only 1% of the worlds population.

    So can we expect to see Osborne enacting massive cuts here too, to ensure our defense spending reflects our global population ratio?

    And how about the health service? The NHS is the fifth largest employer in the world - yet we only have 1% of the worlds population- so again we must expect savage cuts to bring this expenditure in line with our global population ratio.

    The same must be true of pensions- and infrastructure ect ect.

    This is a joke surely- because using the metric of global population ratio must mean we are overspending on just about everything from education to the agricultural subsides that have paid out over a million pounds to one family alone in the past ten years- that family being the close relatives of Ian Duncan Smith.

    +1
  20. OK let us see what best describes what is going on, to quote wikipedia:

    Nope, not that, perhaps this:

    Nope, not that either, perhaps this:

    Nope, not that either, perhaps this:

    Close, but no cigar, perhaps this:

    Yeah that's more like it, good old fashioned bribery. Telling people vote for us and we'll double the free child care you get.

    Spot on!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information