Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
gf3

Rob And Bob Lose Their Job

Recommended Posts

Rob & Bob are identical twins and work in a factory and live in identical houses is the same street. now Bob is a buyer and Rob is a renter. they are both married with two kids. also living in the street is this couple.

harry.jpg

they have never done a days work in their lives and will laugh their tits off if one of the brothers get evicted.

so when the factory closes should Rob get £600 a month housing benefit and should Bob get £100 a month smi.

just asking because some people think smi should be band.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob & Bob are identical twins and work in a factory and live in identical houses is the same street. now Bob is a buyer and Rob is a renter. they are both married with two kids. also living in the street is this couple.

harry.jpg

they have never done a days work in their lives and will laugh their tits off if one of the brothers get evicted.

so when the factory closes should Rob get £600 a month housing benefit and should Bob get £100 a month smi.

just asking because some people think smi should be band.

A) Nobody owes any of them a damn thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A) Nobody owes any of them a damn thing.

So they should all be evicted?

I feel that wayne and waynetta owe Rob and Bob though they have been paying for them out of their tax for the last ten years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob & Bob are identical twins and work in a factory and live in identical houses is the same street. now Bob is a buyer and Rob is a renter. they are both married with two kids. also living in the street is this couple.

harry.jpg

they have never done a days work in their lives and will laugh their tits off if one of the brothers get evicted.

so when the factory closes should Rob get £600 a month housing benefit and should Bob get £100 a month smi.

just asking because some people think smi should be band.

With rights come responsibility. Home ownership has responsibility. As such Bob should put money aside or purchase some form of insurance.

Both Rob and Bob would be entitled to Housing benefit once bob had sold or been repossessed, ergo, theres no discrimination. Rob may be evicted too, as a considerable % of landlords dont accept housing benefit, or it wont cover all costs. SMI unfairly prevents this unheaval for Bob, but often not for Rob.

Theoretically, who would bother renting with SMI open to everyone? Whenever you cant pay, the govt pays. The moral hazard is far greater with SMI, as if you get repossessed, your future capital gains are forfeit. With renting, there are no future capital gains to forfeit.

Of course SMI should be banned. Its an obscenity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so when the factory closes should Rob get £600 a month housing benefit and should Bob get £100 a month smi.

just asking because some people think smi should be band.

Housing benefit rates are being changed so that they will be enough to rent a house at the 30th percentile in the area i.e. a bit worse than the median house. SMI is paid on up to £200k of mortgage i.e a fair bit better than the median house in most areas. It is generally easier to qualify for SMI than HB, for example if you have £16k in savings you will be ineligible for HB.

Really the two should be rolled into one benefit. The homeowner/renter apartheid is one of the uglier aspects of life in this country.

Edited by Dorkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With rights come responsibility. Home ownership has responsibility. As such Bob should put money aside or purchase some form of insurance.

Both Rob and Bob would be entitled to Housing benefit once bob had sold or been repossessed, ergo, theres no discrimination. Rob may be evicted too, as a considerable % of landlords dont accept housing benefit, or it wont cover all costs. SMI unfairly prevents this unheaval for Bob, but often not for Rob.

Theoretically, who would bother renting with SMI open to everyone? Whenever you cant pay, the govt pays. The moral hazard is far greater with SMI, as if you get repossessed, your future capital gains are forfeit. With renting, there are no future capital gains to forfeit.

Of course SMI should be banned. Its an obscenity.

Seems like your going to make Wayne and Waynetta's day I can see the bailiffs throwing all of Bob's furniture out on the street with the kid's crying.

1917994.jpg

and Waynetta laughing and saying "she always was a stuck up cow"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob & Bob are identical twins and work in a factory and live in identical houses is the same street. now Bob is a buyer and Rob is a renter. they are both married with two kids. also living in the street is this couple.

harry.jpg

they have never done a days work in their lives and will laugh their tits off if one of the brothers get evicted.

so when the factory closes should Rob get £600 a month housing benefit and should Bob get £100 a month smi.

just asking because some people think smi should be band.

Rob is only renting because SMI priced him out of the market. Allowing other people to live in houses they cannot afford, to prevent price falls.

I would like to see them both owning, being repossessed very quickly and given tents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Housing benefit rates are being changed so that they will be enough to rent a house at the 30th percentile in the area i.e. a bit worse than the median house. SMI is paid on up to £200k of mortgage i.e a fair bit better than the median house in most areas. It is generally easier to qualify for SMI than HB, for example if you have £16k in savings you will be ineligible for HB.

Really the two should be rolled into one benefit. The homeowner/renter apartheid is one of the uglier aspects of life in this country.

But HB can be £400 a week that's £20'800 a year where as £200,000 @3.6% is only £7.200 a year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob is only renting because SMI priced him out of the market. Allowing other people to live in houses they cannot afford, to prevent price falls.

I would like to see them both owning, being repossessed very quickly and given tents.

No Rob is renting because he got out bid on a house in the same street by a BTL landlord that's where Wayne and Waynetta live now. and both brothers have been paying for their HB out of their tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more important question is do TPTB really give a shit provided they get richer? The answer is no.

You see, 'we are all in this together,' we being Bob, Rob, Wayne, Waynetta and the rest of the taxpaying chumps. We does not include Cameron, Clegg, Osborne or any of their Banking cronies, they are in a different 'we are in this together' group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With rights come responsibility. Home ownership has responsibility. As such Bob should put money aside or purchase some form of insurance.

They did take responsibility they worked and paid taxes , while doing this they were told there was a saftey net in place if they hit hard times. Now both have called on the saftey net and should be able to draw from it.

The one renting might need more help as his rent is more than the other ones mortgage , the one with the mortgage is having his future capital gains secured . Both have different needs and outcomes . Without all the tax they paid over the years they could have insured their housing costs themselves but neither could afford to do both . They made different choices but both paid their taxes so both should be looked after.

Maybe the one with the mortgage might feel he should get more as he paid an extra tax when he bought his home STAMP DUTY, neither of the other two paid this,but then it was his choice to buy . The one renting might think it unfair that the home owner will one day make money but it was his choice to rent.

Wayne and Waynetta do not give a sh-t as they have been told they are ENTITLUUUED !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But HB can be £400 a week that's £20'800 a year where as £200,000 @3.6% is only £7.200 a year

Thats the very crude direct cost though.

SMI takes no account of the amount of equity in the property. Not all will move into HB, many in receipt of SMI will do what should have happened, and downsized with equity and/or a smaller mortgage.

Add in the indirect costs of discouraging work and encouraging speculation, and the figures would become very different, id imagine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats the very crude direct cost though.

SMI takes no account of the amount of equity in the property. Not all will move into HB, many in receipt of SMI will do what should have happened, and downsized with equity and/or a smaller mortgage.

Add in the indirect costs of discouraging work and encouraging speculation, and the figures would become very different, id imagine.

SMI does in away take into account the equity in the house. I mean the more Rob has paid off his mortgage the less the tax payer has to pay. So if Rob had been over paying his mortgage for year that would benefit the tax payer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SMI takes no account of the amount of equity in the property. Not all will move into HB, many in receipt of SMI will do what should have happened, and downsized with equity and/or a smaller mortgage.

Why shoud SMI take account of the amount of equity ? It is irrelevant the person has paid in while working they are entitled to draw out when not.

Some will go into HB and put more costs on the state . The ones that trade down will pay some more tax into the system . A system that charged them while working but gave no benefit when not , however the system will demand they pay tax on the estate agents fees and more tax on solicitors fees without taking into account they now have no job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely there must be a way to make tenants pay all the price of real estate in their taxes, so owners can keep the rent the tenants pay them as 100% free and clear profit?

Edited by Stars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an interesting point.

I'm of the opinion the government should pay itself with housing benefit to house the people to a minimum standard. If people think they can do it better for less, they can have a go.

SMI is a bit of a funny one.

If I could use housing benefit to pay a mortgage I think I would do 17 years on the dole and buy a 2bed house round the corner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They did take responsibility they worked and paid taxes , while doing this they were told there was a saftey net in place if they hit hard times. Now both have called on the saftey net and should be able to draw from it.

The one renting might need more help as his rent is more than the other ones mortgage , the one with the mortgage is having his future capital gains secured . Both have different needs and outcomes . Without all the tax they paid over the years they could have insured their housing costs themselves but neither could afford to do both . They made different choices but both paid their taxes so both should be looked after.

Maybe the one with the mortgage might feel he should get more as he paid an extra tax when he bought his home STAMP DUTY, neither of the other two paid this,but then it was his choice to buy . The one renting might think it unfair that the home owner will one day make money but it was his choice to rent.

Wayne and Waynetta do not give a sh-t as they have been told they are ENTITLUUUED !!

+1

The two family's should be treated the same. In some ways Bob is worse off because if any thing goes wrong with the house he has to fix it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But HB can be £400 a week that's £20'800 a year where as £200,000 @3.6% is only £7.200 a year

True, that is a bit of an aberration caused by the central London rental market though. For 90%+ of the country, the top rate of SMI secures you a nicer house than the top rate of HB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you feed a healthy wild fox every day over time it will become tame, fat, lazy and not very cunning. If you then stop feeding the fox it may no longer have the ability to feed itself and could die.

Personally I think it was cruel to start feeding it in the first place and the sooner we can stop the better it would be for them in the long run. But most people these days see the crime as not continuing to feed it. But hey thats Socialists for you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, that is a bit of an aberration caused by the central London rental market though. For 90%+ of the country, the top rate of SMI secures you a nicer house than the top rate of HB.

I agree that it is a bit extreme but then not every body has £200,000 average is £108,819 average rent £1242 that cant be right can it? I am sure SMI costs less per family than HB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you feed a healthy wild fox every day over time it will become tame, fat, lazy and not very cunning. If you then stop feeding the fox it may no longer have the ability to feed itself and could die.

Personally I think it was cruel to start feeding it in the first place and the sooner we can stop the better it would be for them in the long run. But most people these days see the crime as not continuing to feed it. But hey thats Socialists for you!

The fat fox in the system being the state not the people . The state takes and takes from Rob and Bob but does not want to help them when they fall on hard times just the same as the fax fox having cubs and not being able to feed them eventhough it is the responsibilty of that said fat fox. Likewise the state that has forced its people to feed it is responsible to those people when the boot is on the other foot. Biggest problem with the fat fox state is allowing the Capatilists to nick all the money that the people pay in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 312 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.