New RM listings post Xmas

[EnglishinWales]

6 hours ago, hotairmail said:

Wow. I think you got that badly the wrong way round. Baffling how you could think this if you simply stood back and considered that statement for a second or two. Fallen for the City propaganda by a certain pink coloured paper hook, line and sinker.

What's to consider? The financial services and banking are what's keeping us afloat. If we didn't have that we'd be barely richer than Ireland. Industry we have left is mostly foreign owned.

Exception maybe is weapons. Apparently we are doing a roaring trade with Saudi. Now I think we can all agree that that doesn't contribute anything.

Edited December 26, 2016 by EnglishinWales

[EnglishinWales]

For the OP's point there was a couple of reduced places within 10 miles of my area but nothing exciting. New year will be more interesting.

[Kiwi Toast]

17 hours ago, spyguy said:

'Thats the last Xmas im spending with you, you b1tch/ctnu. Put the house on the market for the new Year ...'

Despiue claims, the UK has not seen much in the way of wage increases over the 10-15 years.

Combine that with high house prices, long overdue benefit cuts and theres not alot of cash about.

In my experience it's always taken several days for the EA to upload a listing to rightmove. It usually takes several days for the EA to find an available photographer and unless you know for sure which one you want to use, it will take at least several days to arrange the valuations so that you can make your choice. In short I think properties listed between Boxing Day and the first week of January will have been planned from early-mid December at the latest.

[Kiwi Toast]

Just now, mathschoc said:

for every genuine claimant there are 4-5 times as many scroungers, I know that having grown up on council estate.

You seem argumentative and miserable.

There could be 4-5 times as many scroungers, but clearly no one individual could have this much information from casual observation from growing up with claimant-scroungers.

[mathschoc]

Just now, Kiwi Toast said:

There could be 4-5 times as many scroungers, but clearly no one individual could have this much information from casual observation from growing up with claimant-scroungers.

I agree small sample size but VERY accurate for the estate I was on

[spacedin]

34 minutes ago, mathschoc said:

for every genuine claimant there are 4-5 times as many scroungers, I know that having grown up on council estate.

You seem argumentative and miserable.

If you want to have a reasoned debate it would help if you didn't use emotive langauge like scrounger. One person's scrounger is another's genuine case

I've spent time on ESA myself, very legitimately. At times I felt greatly ashamed and I would avoid certain people because of it, not because I wasn't a genuine case but because of the danger of encountering bigoted views, people who think they have a right to ask you detailed questions about what's in your medical records just to try and prove a point. Who think that because they saw you in town one Sunday, getting some fresh air, you must be fine and dandy. Right as rain. 

What irks me is the kind of climate of fear this creates. No one wants the possibility of being labled a scrounger by their peers, losing their sense of dignity. The problem is this means people find it a lot harder to talk about their problems, they understanably try and hide them and this unfortunately can make them more withdrawn such that their problems get worse.

Edited December 27, 2016 by spacedin

[Greg Bowman]

15 hours ago, EnglishinWales said:

Benefit cuts are not overdue. They should not be happening at all. Punishing people for not being able to find non existant jobs is as stupid as it is heartless.

Oh they are, the bloated welfare state is totally out of control and hence why we can longer afford a well funded system for genuine UK tax payers who have paid into the system and are between income periods

ditto the NHS - it is well funded it's just that the average dopey Joe won't accept the changes to restore it to Bevans model i.e. 

The stopping of any form of elective medicine 

Nominal charge for every appointment 

tax breaks for private health cover

Cast iron NI number or credit card authorisation system at point of use

Refusal of service or payment for self harmers - Obese diabetic's for example 

[Greg Bowman]

6 minutes ago, spacedin said:

If you want to have a reasoned debate it would help if you didn't use emotive langauge like scrounger. One person's scrounger is another's genuine case

I've spent time on ESA myself, very legitimately. At times I felt greatly ashamed and I would avoid certain people because of it, not because I wasn't a genuine case but because of the danger of encountering bigoted views, people who think they have a right to ask you detailed questions about what's in your medical records just to try and prove a point. Who think that because they saw you in town one Sunday, getting some fresh air, you must be fine and dandy. Right as rain. 

The majority of claimants in London are not genuine in the the Bevan/social concern  safety net vision for our welfare state and by defintion are not UK born 

so as an apolitical statement are F ***** up the system because how historically can they have paid in ?

[nome]

6 hours ago, EnglishinWales said:

Congratulations on your turn of luck. When it runs out and you get sick, suffer a family crisis or have an incacipating accident and end up unemployed and on long term sick pay, people will know not to call you a scrounger given that you have 'paid in a hell of a lot'.

How about the ''in work'' benefits? What's your opinion on them?

 

I know numerous people who all choose to work no more than 16 hours or so a week because working anymore would ''effect me tax credits'' despite them having the option to have full-time, permanent contracts.

[long time lurking]

6 hours ago, nome said:

How about the ''in work'' benefits? What's your opinion on them?

 

I know numerous people who all choose to work no more than 16 hours or so a week because working anymore would ''effect me tax credits'' despite them having the option to have full-time, permanent contracts.

I would guess they are a fair bit more costly than the out of work JSA ,the simple one to make cuts to without to much political damage is housing benefit 

IIRC London pays more to landlords than the claimants get to live on

[spyguy]

Welfare needs a massive rework.

First, no benefits to non uk nationals.

Any migrant must be self supporting - we dont need a load of tb infected 3rd world dossers.

Contribution, time limited benefits. Must pay for 5 years. Then get 30% of your average post tax income for 6 months, then 100week for next 18 months. Then workfare. Most people only claim for short time.

Max 10 year lifetime of claims.

Single parents given option if 5 years income, with the option to delay retirement by 5 years.

Tax credits only kick after 40h work per parent.

HB capped at 400/month.

Named mother or father for single parents. Any welfare of the absent parent is took for the child.

[Gurgle]

49 minutes ago, spyguy said:

Welfare needs a massive rework.

First, no benefits to non uk nationals.

Any migrant must be self supporting - we dont need a load of tb infected 3rd world dossers.

Contribution, time limited benefits. Must pay for 5 years. Then get 30% of your average post tax income for 6 months, then 100week for next 18 months. Then workfare. Most people only claim for short time.

Max 10 year lifetime of claims.

Single parents given option if 5 years income, with the option to delay retirement by 5 years.

Tax credits only kick after 40h work per parent.

HB capped at 400/month.

Named mother or father for single parents. Any welfare of the absent parent is took for the child.

Most of your ideas fit with my ideals.  Not sure why so many on here are so against benefit cuts when most seem to be genuine believers in living an honest life and being self supporting.  The UK has badly lost its way when it comes to government spending.

[spyguy]

2 minutes ago, Gurgle said:

Most of your ideas fit with my ideals.  Not sure why so many on here are so against benefit cuts when most seem to be genuine believers in living an honest life and being self supporting.  The UK has badly lost its way when it comes to government spending.

It can be spun as increasing benefits. But reducing them for people who are on them too long.

Needs based system is nuts. Even more nuts when open to EUers.

[EnglishinWales]

8 hours ago, nome said:

How about the ''in work'' benefits? What's your opinion on them?

 

I know numerous people who all choose to work no more than 16 hours or so a week because working anymore would ''effect me tax credits'' despite them having the option to have full-time, permanent contracts.

Maybe their jobs's a joke so who can blame them? Just 'cause your job is cushy doesn't mean somebody else's is. Most people who work for someone else would spend as little time at work as they could get away with.

It shows our version of capitalism is broken but that's not the individual's fault. Talk of scroungers achieves nothing.

If wages were fairer, housing wasn't sky-high expensive and taxes were lower then in-work benefits wouldn't be needed to fill the gap.

If the govt insists on taxing everything and won't reign in the banks, landlords and employers then SOMETHING HAS TO FILL THE GAP.

Scrap all benefits and state pensions. Tax the landed gentry to the hilt. Make tax credits truly universal, non-means tested, at a set amount, for every UK citizen aged 21+. Say around £150 a week. Problem solved.

Edited December 27, 2016 by EnglishinWales

[EnglishinWales]

 

12 hours ago, mathschoc said:

for every genuine claimant there are 4-5 times as many scroungers, I know that having grown up on council estate.

You seem argumentative and miserable.

It's you who seems like the miserable one actually, judgementally looking down on your fellow citizens.

[jiltedjen]

the lazy will always be lazy regardless of blaming 'there being no work', or 'work is a joke'

there are endless opportunities these days to make something of yourself with a little effort. Internet is one massive free education machine. 

There are people who are in genuine need with health and mental problems, and i suspect a lot of scroungers who dont think there is anything wrong with them, actually do have varying degrees of mental health problems, if they admit or even know it.

Yes we do need to levy a lot more taxes of assets, and the super rich. But at the end of the day if you dont work for it, or put effort it. You wont own a house regardless of any rebalancing. 

A lot of HPC's are very hard working, and although they beleve that people shouldn't be homeless. There is a bit of a moral problem when the work-shy get expensive houses for free, when those who actually contribute cant even gain control over such a house. 

We need to do a lot more at both ends of the spectrum, introduce forced work schemes for the most feckless and lazy but have a really instenive mental health check before hand. And tax assets, not work a lot harder. 

 

[spacedin]

1 hour ago, jiltedjen said:

A lot of HPC's are very hard working, and although they beleve that people shouldn't be homeless. There is a bit of a moral problem when the work-shy get expensive houses for free, when those who actually contribute cant even gain control over such a house. 


 

 

There's hard working and there's workaholic, I'd argue 'workaholism' is like a disease and actually is part of the problem.

I don't think working hard necessarily makes people very responsible either. Plenty of people work their arses off only to splurge their money on shite, moaning that they'll never be able to afford a house because they've managed to plunge themselves into credit card debt whilst receiving a 30k salary. They then blame this on benefit recipients, particualrly single mothers when in reality, at least in part they have themselves to blame. 

What do we define as 'contribution'? It's arguable whether property speculation is a form of 'contribution', or other forms of speculation for that matter. Aren't we led to believe that those virtuous hard working 'gentlemen' in the city are what's bringing us prosperity?..What value do we place on carers or people who work part time but volunteer on the weekend at the homeless shelter? They contribute more if you ask me. 

Edited December 27, 2016 by spacedin

[awaytogo]

21 hours ago, EnglishinWales said:

Congratulations on your turn of luck. When it runs out and you get sick, suffer a family crisis or have an incacipating accident and end up unemployed and on long term sick pay, people will know not to call you a scrounger given that you have 'paid in a hell of a lot'.

So you don't know anyone who could work but has decided to live off benefits instead, you live in a small bubble if you don't, people including relatives I know don't work because they are better off financially  staying at home, so are benefits to high.