Pindar
-
Posts
5,069 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Pindar
-
-
On 08/04/2019 at 13:46, Captain Kirk said:
No doubt they'll be shocked by the result. Didn't see that coming.
They might be shocked by the result but they'll ignore it nevertheless. Do you see the pattern?
-
The pollsters and planners know you better than you know yourself. They're confident you'll vote the same way you've always voted and that nothing will change.
-
4. Pathological liar
5. Duplicitous
6. Zero integrity
-
6 hours ago, Monkey said:
If they have paid £81.5m and want to build a 1000 houses, even before work starts that £81,500 per house, demolition and site prep works, then utilities, roads, recreational area, lighting etc all going to add to the cost of of the houses before the actual cost of building the houses...
I wonder how affordable the affordable houses will be
Here, I just typed £480,000 into my computer. You can pay me back over 50 years. Affordable enough?
-
Reminds me of the "Not the Nine O'Clock News" spoof news headline where, under the Thatcher government, prisoners were going to be given the opportunity to "buy their own cells".
-
Isn't a credit check proof of who you are? You must provide a valid ID such as a passport and several previous addresses as well as bank details. If that's not proving your identity then I don't know what is. To me this is all about the political left trying to claim that the practice of establishing somebodies identity is somehow racist (unless you happen to be a native).
-
It's interesting that an employer can be prosecuted for not checking the right to residence etc. but a landlord is now apparently exempt. I wonder if that has something to do with the fact that so many MPs own property and BTLs? Since it's the government/state foots the bill for the rental while the person's residency status is being processed, the landlord doesn't give two hoots. It also avoids the potential embarassment to politicians should they ever be exposed as renting to "illegals". Just a thought.
-
Yes, anybody I disagree with is guilty of manipulation. Unilever was against Brexit, does that mean Brexit is bad (by your logic I mean)
-
Oh goody, price gouging in the north too.
Northerners had housing that reflects local wages. Can't have any of that now can we?
-
Quote
The Treasury believes a third of people claiming self-employed status as a "personal service company" are actually full employees and should pay more tax.
In other words, we (i.e. us Eton types, champagne socialists living in fashionable areas and our political buddies and network of financial parasites in the City) think that only us big boys with the right connections should be allowed to reduce our tax burden. Ye naughty little peasants have no right to not give away one third of your income to help me and my elite buddies swell our coffers.
QuoteIt says without reform, high levels of non-compliance with tax rules could cost HM Revenue and Customs, which collects taxes, £1.2bn a year by 2023.
I wonder what the figure is for Amazon, google and Microsoft's "tax arrangements". I would hazard a guess that "reform" of their taxation would yield somewhat more than a measly £1.2 billion. That doesn't even cover one installment for the next bank bailouts.
QuoteIt is now looking at demanding that firms which use personal service company contractors take legal responsibility for ensuring "off-payroll" contractors stick to the tax rules known as IR35.
Yes, IR35. I remember it well. The Blair government realised that the proverbial pole wasn't greasy enough so it thought it a great idea to close off a small loophole, which, in comparison to corporate tax dodging and bank bailouts is a drop in the ocean.
QuoteA similar move in the public sector on "synthetic" self-employed has raised £410m extra in taxes since 2016, HMRC estimates suggest.
I love that word "synthetic". Synthetic like the words that fall out of the mouths of these corporate leeches and duplicitous politicians.
-
Britain is always ahead of the game when it comes to technology. Electric vehicles are no exception...
-
Apparently having an income of 40k and no mortgage is no indicator of taste. I mean, pink dayglow sweaters and white jeans died with the 1980s didn't they?
-
Good grief, I hope they have more bacofoil and plywood in stock at the local B&Q. The design is a slight improvement on the bungaloids of the 60s and 70s but really, 800, 000 ?
-
Great, so now you can shower and take a s**t at the same time. Human farming becomes more industrialised by the year. Roll on Hong Kong cage-style living.
-
Queen May has made a personal pledge to get out more in her fluorescent bodice and said earlier "let them eat BTL". In a statement to the Daily Smearer, she outlined proposals that would see potential home buyers get the opportunity to purchase a heavily discounted government portacabin with only one previous owner. She declined to comment on where the units could be sited but hinted heavily that a large stretch of land was available near J4 of the M25 which offered both convenient access to London's main orbital and a good view of her husband's golf club.
-
On 10/05/2018 at 18:23, Sour Mash said:
As far as I can see, Citizens Income is inevitable. We already give away lots of money for free through the benefits system, might as well give everyone a stipend and simplify the whole thing massively.
As automation takes more and more jobs away (not just unskilled factory or manual work done by robots, AI is going to eat the lunch of a lot of middle class people too) it will be necessary to take some of the profits and give them back to the general population if you want to actually have a market that can afford to buy your goods and services.
As for the 99% refusing to consume, most people are pretty mindless and will happily consume whatever is served up to them and promoted by the media. People everywhere totally buy into the Western consumption model, even though it doesn't really make you happy.
Won't it mean that the whole economy adjusts to a new baseline (market forces and all that) and prices rise commensurately with the availability of money? You would still need to work to afford any luxuries or leisure pursuits and most likely end up living a subsistence life with only basic needs taken care of. The government already subsidises employers and landlords massively through the tax credit and housing benefit systems respectively. Universal income would just mean that everybody took the same amount from the pool of (dwindling) public money, which in reality comes from the taxation of said public. Where's the money going to come from when nobody is paying tax?
-
A pokey kitchenette with expensive appliances seems an odd place to store furniture.
-
6 minutes ago, Futuroid said:
To be fair to him, there about 50% of photos of May are "unflattering"...
Of course the Independent employs somebody full time as an "unflattering photograph executive" it's amazing what you can extract from freeze framing videos all day long.
-
Independent as a crack w***e.
5 minutes ago, highYield said:Wow. Can the editor choosing to pair such an unflattering photo of May with this story be described as anything other than propaganda?
The 'Independent' eh?
-
That is a typical metropolitan elite view. It is also blatantly the opposite to the truth which is that mass unskilled migration via EU membership has hurt the least privileged in society. Your position is disgusting because you would rather see people suffer than to admit that your political beliefs are wrong and have not served anybody's interests except the super wealthy.
38 minutes ago, Peter Hun said:Yup.
After all, a large part of the vote was about 'F*** 'em' I have nothing to lose'. My vote was to prevent damage to the UK and the poor. It seems the poor working class are hell bent on making themselves poorer. You cant fight stupid, so enjoy the spectacle.
-
20 minutes ago, LivingWithTheInlaws said:
Actually, next week they follow the property developers to report it from their side. I'm interested to see how they can do this without painting them as the villain though.
I was lucky enough to build my own house in a small village a few years ago and so I have tended not to object to other developments in the village. However, having seen the programme last night, I think both sides are in the wrong. The NIMBYs because they should expect at least some expansion of their village and the developers because they appear to be creating yet another maze of tiny unaffordable sh1tboxes.
The problem is there's no proper regulation of building and it's all about profit. Markets can deliver decent housing if they're properly regulated. All the time there's such a cosy relationship between the government, its MPs and the builders' cartel, nothing will actually change. All the time there is a rich elite that owns most of the land and regards the average punter as vermin, I don't see any hope for decent affordable housing for everybody.
I believe the NIMBY's are being used to make a point, albeit for all the wrong reasons. The idea is to cast the provision housing as bad and environmentally damaging in order to maintain the status quo. That's what the BBC does, it is the mouthpiece of the vested interests and "environmentalists" whilst doing precious little to address the real problems. It's simple misdirection. Make it all about "destroying green belt land" and divert attention from the fact that there is almost zero regulation of house building - this is evident in the number of recent cases where brand new houses are literally falling apart after a year with no hope of redress for the owners.
The real villain here is high land prices, archaic planning laws and a "light-touch" regulatory regime. This is a recipe for decreasing standards of living, particularly as our rulers seem hellbent of drawing more and more people into the country, regardless of the effect this has on infrastructure, housing, schools, hospitals yadayadayada. What's bad for ordinary people is good for the already obscenely rich. Same old story unfortunately.
-
The elites don't want any building in the provinces - that's why the BBC makes this sh*te about the offended, placard waving residents "up in arms". The whole idea, if you want to know what's planned is to watch "The Hunger Games" and then you'll understand.
-
On 29/01/2018 at 10:23 AM, spyguy said:
Lets assume bth people bought the places 4 years ago.
Thats pre MMR.
Wages for the target market for starter homes have gone backwards in real terms. Youve also had PFI car snaffle up a fair chunk of the under 30s take home.
Both places will sell for the amount of credit a 38 yo with an Audi on PFI and earnings below 24k can get - 50kish.
At which point they'll be "snapped up by a canny BTL investor" and rented back to an under 50.
-
I think we're all victims of the plans that were laid decades ago. The boomers just happened to exist during a time when those plans had yet to be fully implemented, so yes, they are lucky. Resenting them for not recognising they are played just as much as anybody else is futile. The only way we're ever going to return to affordable lives is if the societal planners have a change of heart and decide that property ownership is, after all, more efficient than lifelong renting. I wouldn't hold my breath though - the perception of efficiency by the 99% is very different from that of the 1% who already own everything.
IMF: 'Dangerous undercurrents' threaten global economy
in House prices and the economy
Posted
It's like "the system we created and which we know to be inherently unstable is, well, unstable". Talk about stating the obvious. I wonder who has most to lost from these "undercurrents"? Could it be the "global investors" per chance?