Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 159 comments are related to the topic:
They're all useless. Think about this.....
They're all useless. Think about this.....
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 159
|
By:
Britain gives away millions of homes, that's the problem.
|
|
By:
As long as they continue to give away millions of houses and flats for nothing property prices will not fall.
|
|
By:
The prices won`t fall because although they are being give away, someone has to pay for them.
|
|
By:
now if they were not being given away they would find market value.
|
|
By:
Gallivanter, Mrs Thatcher did something similar although the houses weren't given away, they were sold for a nominal sum below market value to the sitting tenants. Greatly frowned upon by our left-leaning brothers.
|
|
By:
NO they don't lfc..... You have made a couple of nonsense statements.
Millions of houses for nothing?!?!? Where do you get your information? They have reached market value, that's the problem. The market is all demand and not enough supply. The desperation to have a roof means landlords can charge what they like. Before the right to buy, a majority of people lived in council accommodation. As far as I can tell and remember, it seemed to work OKish |
|
By:
They were, foinavon, mostly housing stock that wouldn't have been sellable unless to those already living in them.
Anyone merely looking to buy a house in say, 1982, wouldn't generally have looked on a council estate, the only way to sell them, to raise short-term cash for councils was cheaply. The banning of councils replacing housing stock sold as "right to buy" has meant a shortage of houses to rent. |
|
By:
well there are people who don`t work, there are people working receiving housing benefit, and other issues such as immigration with many people living in a single property and not paying anything except to the landlord increasing rental values and property prices
the cost to the taxpayer for housing benefit alone is somewhere between 4 and 6 billion. This is money that goes maintains the price of rents and houses and flats at an artificially high price |
|
By:
The council houses should have been replaced but weren't by any of the governments after Thatcher's. I was in Hounslow at the weekend and noticed ex-council houses for sale at £450K
 |
|
By:
are we allowed to mention single mothers living in 4 bedroom houses and receiving the equivalent of what would amount to a salary before tax of about £70,000?
probably not. |
|
By:
you see someone is paying for these houses, and if is spread over the entire country and paid for by the country and not the individual that creates the high property and rental values
|
|
By:
council housing was originally affordable housing for the working man.
that was all. |
|
By:
now if you have a working man, and you have a single mother living in a property and receiving benefits to the equivalent of a £70,000 job, before tax in fairness.
how will that work? I don't know. |
|
By:
if you have a single working woman looking to buy or rent a property where she works, how will that work?
I don't know. |
|
By:
don't give foreigners a penny unless there's something in it for us
hope this helps |
|
By:
The system I was commending is not unknown in some parts East of Suez where mortgages cannot be had. It can be compared to a mortgage purchase or to council house renting but it avoids some of the pitfalls inherent in both.
Boggsie doesn't need to come up with a deposit, therefore avoids the problem of paying high rent while trying to save. When he does choose his house, he isn't limited to buying an overpriced house or to buying a house in a slum because his "rent" is assessed as fair. Even though he is paying an affordable "rent", he isn't confined to a sink council estate. Within reason, he can live where he wants. When the only purchaser of most privately-owned houses is the government, the prices tend to be low. That gets rid of the overpriced junk on the market today. Boggs and Mrs Boggs will one day own their own house then will eventually pass on to Paradise, leaving the house to all the little Boggsies who will immediately sell it -- to the government. And they'll sell it at whatever price the government offers. All profits in the scheme go to the Boggs family, whose parents paid for part of the house, or to the government, which paid for the other part. Nobody loses, except perhaps rack-renting landlords who should be dragged round town behind wetfarting camels. IMHO, of course. Told you that Studyform was the cleverest. You ought to listen to him. |
|
By:
The whole point of this thread, lfc, was to show how politicians REALLY are.
As boxingthefox says, it's Divide and Rule. With the help of the media, advertisers and others with a vested interest, they (all of them for years), just feed us information to distract us from the useless work they do for US while supposedly working for US. If you don't "read between the lines", you will end up blaming they want you to blame. The stuff you mention, whilst an issue, possibly contributes towards the general state of things. But.... costs a hell of a lot less than big company tax avoidance, money given to banks, or the contracts given to G4S or Capita. The 100's of millions saved by ATOS was spent on ATOS (a French company, btw). |
|
By:
That is a good idea, Gallivanter.
It's VERY interesting to note that a LARGE number of MPs are also private landlords..... perhaps in a fairer world, this wouldn't be allowed and then they might consider the plight of the tenant instead of themselves. |
|
By:
There's SO much you might be right about
 . |
|
By:
Exactly SF. how many greased palms involved in the G4S contracts. Athos and Capita Also involved Themselves in the recent NHS history, what a surprise.
|
|
By:
If the government holds the houses, if the government determines the price , if the government determines who you can sell it to, and for how much, and who here's and receives this money etc then be very sure that before long the government will tell you how to behave, it will tell you who to pray to, it will tell you what to think , and you will be less than human.
|
|
By:
I would rather live on the streets in a country like Britain or America than live in such a place
Poverty doesn't worry me. |
|
By:
lfc1971, where the above schemes exist, the government does not own all the houses. Far from it. It doesn't even prevent private landlords from operating, why should it? It merely rents out houses, just like the British government does via local authorities.
By being able to compete fairly in the "rental" market where money cannot be lent at interest, it allows every level of society the right to buy. We hear a lot about the right to buy houses in Britain but that's the same as the right to buy Rolls Royces. Not everyone really has those rights, do they? |
|
By:
It is simple, the housing market should not be regulated by the government . Because with that comes the evils that we see in these countries.
The housing market is regulated by the people within that country. The society itself must be self regulating. and this can only happen if the society is seperate from the government and lives apart from government influence. This can only happen when it is the people of the country change the government when they want, and not the situation we have now where the government changes the population ..through immigration and other means |
|
By:
The government isn't regulating the housing market here and it's in great shape, isn't it?
|
|
By:
Yes, and as I have alluded to the reason I might as well spell it out.
When there is an unlimited supply of people the government and corporates have the power When people are easy to come by they are not respected, they are despised |
|
By:
I always thought outsourcing as a strange idea.
If the cuts could be made to make things more cost effective, then just make them! If a company takes over, let's take rubbish disposal as an example, then that company needs to make money. So, and I'm sure people can remember this, 8 blokes on a dust-cart, clearing dustbins thoroughly and efficiently every week, becomes 2 men and a driver collecting some of the rubbish (which we now have to sort for them), every fortnight, if we put it in bags which to we are limited in number. If not take it to the local (mostly privately owned) tip, limit 3 visits a month where I am. So..... 5 men out of work (now on the dole?) Much rubbish not taken, massive rise in fly-tipping, use of Black Plastic Bags (very green in the age of recycling, which incidentally a big waste of fresh water). Spread of smells and rats and unhygienic situations. All because someone powerful's friend (or husband) is in ownership of a big rubbish disposal company. It hasn't saved the general public any money, the money just goes to someone other than the council and that someone wants to keep some of it. And, surely 8 men can do a better job then 3! I don't know if this is a good example, but similar almost certainly applies to nearly everything that was sold Most efficiencies and cuts are in man-power and wages. Whether or not it's American economics I'm not sure, but wages are seen as an evil, a cost to keep trimmed. In the older more successful (if it isn't rose-tinted glasses) times, workers had a value. They just had to produce more than they cost, and for a couple of decades at least, were paid fairly. Or maybe, once again it was about supply and demand. |
|
By:
To survive, people need five things: Food, clothing, shelter, medical attention and protection. A government that does not provide those basic needs through regulation is failing to govern.
There is no need to turn the people into slaves to provide the necessities. However, it's difficult to argue against the government regulating the above and not protesting when it tells you which side of the road to drive on. Still, lfc1971, I don't think we're really very far apart after all.  |
|
By:
I am also sure we are not very far apart :)
|
|
By:
lfc
When people are cheap, hungry or in desperation they are despised.... and used, by the governments and big corporations who have the money. When the distribution of wealth is as disproportionate as now (or as 150 years ago - when there were less people about and no foreigners and no welfare state) then those with money will use those without. Then expect them to be grateful. |
|
By:
good night all, time to watch the football highlights
|
|
By:
night night.
|
|
By:
I don't disagree with that either study
|
|
By:
GN, lfc.
Studyform, Marx spoke of the "surplus value of labour" which he saw as a bad thing. That surplus value isn't such a bad thing unless, like Marxists, you think it rightfully belongs to the government. In such cases, the government always becomes those who govern instead of those who are governed. The old G.U.M. shops of soviet Moscow can now be found in E.U. Brusssels. You have to be related to someone who governs to get in them. It might be that as globalism fails (Brexit is just the beginning) the surplus value, or most of it, will be returned to those who produced it. Just like it was in the good ole days! |
|
By:
It beggars belief that G4S should be allowed to run any prisons, let alone 6, Oakwood has been an utter disaster with to many inexperienced staff, target figures massaged, and lies being told.
But everything is ok now according to, John McLaughlin, G4S director for HMP Oakwood, “Opening a prison is a complex process and our experience and these figures show that it takes time to develop the experience of staff, fully embed the prison regime and establish links with local partner agencies. “Oakwood has come through a difficult period since it opened but the prison, staff and regime have matured. Really!! try putting Experienced well paid staff in at the start, that might have helped. Even the OLympics fiasco (bailed out by volunteers) has not halted or even slowed this greedy juggernaut |
|
By:
Great thread, keep it going SF/guys, i'm off GN and GL.
|
|
By:
GN & GL to you, Fox.
If you don't like G4S, I wonder what you would think of what happens where I idle my summer months away. The Volunteer Program of the Arizona Department of Corrections might just have a place for you. If that doesn't suit, how would you like to be a Reserve Deputy Sheriff? You get a big hat and a gun and the right to chaw tobaccy. |
|
By:
I honestly don't know much about Marxism and I haven't read anything on the subject.
From what you say, it makes sense though. [Didn't the Russian oligarchs merely get pre-advised about what was going to be sold off, btw? (since you mention G U M)] It's why communism cannot work. Someone has to be in charge so by definition cannot be equal. Which I guess it what you just said. Added to which there are so many levels of being in charge. Further added to which is the natural human quality of greed. There will always be someone ready to help a buddy out especially if it means better money or conditions for themselves. I have often thought about the old state run shops in communist countries (iirc there were called corecom shops in Bulgaria for example) effectively they become one big company and buy and sell everything to the population. I imagine, if it was run fairly and I have no idea if it was or not, then goods should be cheaper because a level of profit is removed. Move over to a capitalist state like the UK and think Tesco. |
|
By:
back tomorrow for me too, probably.
night night. |
|
By:
Goodnight, Study.
I will now go and annoy the readers of the Daily Mail until my eyes droop. |