Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

GF,

Working People Claiming Housing Benefit Soars By 104%
BY STEVEN PREECE · 10 DECEMBER, 2013


If the above is correct it shows the stupidity of much of the economic policies of this coalition.

Sheer stupidity to have people being paid to be unemployed when the could be subsidised and doing something useful in society and improving the general economy.

Stupid to be paying tax payers money into the hands of the private landlords, when with adequate "social housing" the equity of it would belong to the state and the state drawing and "income" from many of the tenants.

========

Taxation of the poor used to increase the wealth of the more affluent in a society.

Hi fred,

the problem in a way and I dont like going back retro is that of all the council houses maggie T sold, 66% are now in the hands of private landlords.

Private lanlords like myself and cynic are not regultated as tightly as we should really be.

Having said that I bet cyners like me is a good private landlord but their is a lot in fact a majority who are not and spoil it for the good ones.

It can be really difficult to make a profit on a private tennancy a lot harder than people think.

fawlty - you writing even more drivel than usual, hard as that may be to believe

Cyners i got done for an absolute midgin on my Income tax/ property tax this time. Robbing bs. People think it s derd cheap to let property it isnt.

Just think i have 4 large hotel type blocks (syndicate of 7 sharing) 485 rooms, and 12 houses mine.... i rent out.

its bloody hard work , very hard work.

sticky - there's an awful lot of lousy tenants too! .....

if the rental is at the lower end at say £700-1000 pm, your deposit is only £1000-1500 and it certainly doesn't take much for that to be more than gobbled up even with decent tenants

actually, your last comment says it all even if it rather contradicts what went before ..... it certainly highlights that fawlty doesn't have much clue as to reality in the letting market

=======

ps fawlty is fred!

I wonder who is footing the bill for all these British extras at Mandela's memorial service? Cameron, Clegg, Milliband - ok, but Blair, Brown, Major? I hope the latter three paid their own way.

GF.

I had no problem with the sale of "council houses" to the occupants and many were delighted to do so. Good for them.

But the money from the sales should have gone into replacement of housing stock.

Again, not against private landlords (I am one myself, due to inheritance "complications"), but the argument of supply and demand and high rental returns is in my mind a "fraudulent" argument association, when the rent is subsidised out of "general taxation" and going to the lucky few.

(It occurs, but the profit should be reduced by increased construction to reduce the unit price.)

========


=========

Fair point fred.

That article about housing benefit for working people is such a load of nonsense.

hey dont forget though Fred a lot around here , well in the town bought their council house and as soon as the time limit was up flogged them on the open market....and they spruced them up to make a killer profit.

Now their were time limits if i remember rightly, before you could buy. those that lived for years in the house no problem, them who were thier very much shorter ....well.

The current government policy regarding the right to buy is that there must be a new property built for each one sold.

The real slump in housebuilding came under the last government.

Hays LOL LOL LOl LOL LO LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL.

hays do you wear a mask??.

and what do you consider a high rental return?
and what about when the property is earning nothing?
and what about the shortfall when dilaps are greater than the deposit?

and now where do you intend to build your houses?
and do you want to gobble up yet more greenbelt?
and do you want to sell off school playing fields to create more building land?
and do you want to requisition allotments for building land?


and so on and so on .... for goodness sake, do try to get real for once in your life

Cyners whom are you posting to?, make sure u put the name in.

fawlty-fred of course .... you know the chap; the one who lives in cloud cuckoo land

GF.

goldfinger Send an email to goldfinger View goldfinger's profile - 10 Dec 2013 17:29 - 33891 of 33894

hey dont forget though Fred a lot around here , well in the town bought their council house and as soon as the time limit was up flogged them on the open market....and they spruced them up to make a killer profit.


No real problems with that. If the "properties" were sold off at market value and the "maintenance" and upgrade was paid for by the occupants and I think after a delay period of 1-2 years, unless it was due to "death of purchaser" etc.

But the initial sale should be at market value.

================

Manuel,

You are appearing thicker and more reactionary with every one of your posting.

Drop Nigel a few bob out and he may notice you.

It seems to me that he needs more loud mouths like you to join him.

You never know he might cut a deal with you.

That would of course be at your "market" value.


======

Otherwise, sit back, have a small drink and try thinking of the solutions to your own questions.


====

Id have expected more from you lot today. honestly I would.

We have a nice little community here and we all argue but would you want it taken away. No i doubt it.

We all have differing views on life, politics etc etc but I think theirs a general air of respect and it wouldnt be the same if we all agreed.

Ive always supported you guys If we get an Itinerant on the board causing trouble , but it just seems one way. I support you.......... You just blank.

A bit pissed of with that especially given the hours i have devoted to this board over the years given the many times ive been posting charts at 5.30am in the morning.

ohh well thats modern life is it.

sticky - i almost never bother to waste my breath on fawlty, and it's certainly my fault(!) for so doing today ..... i won't squelch him, as i didn't even do that to mrsi - it's akin to succumbing to bullying

at least my posts to you generally get a response that has an affinity with the real world

If you applied for the Right to Buy after 18th January 2005 and sell within 5 years of buying it the following applies:

If you sell within the 1st year after your purchase, the whole discount will have to be repaid.
If you sell within the 2nd year, four fifths must be repaid.
If you sell within the 3rd year, three fifths must be repaid.
If you sell within the 4th year, two fifths must be repaid.
If you sell within the 5th year, one fifth must be repaid.
If you sell after the 5 years, no discount will need to be repaid.

gf
What drivel are you posting now?

"A bit pissed of with that especially given the hours i have devoted to this board over the years given the many times ive been posting charts at 5.30am in the morning."

This just a thread on an open BB. We can post what we want.