Re: Housing : Mon Dec 02, 2013 5:55 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

Sorry but I have one other question:

Would you rent a house to Bob Crow?

Yes, I would happily rent to him, but not a subsidised rental meant for someone in housing need.

it's quite simple really, Bob Crow does not NEED social housing, he is stealing it from someone more worthy. The system allows him to do it, he is not at fault, the system is.

Re: Housing : Mon Dec 02, 2013 6:59 pm  

So just to get this straight...

In a Standee world there are two types of rental property, the private landlord/letting agency type rent where the market sets the rates and the landlord charges as much as he/she feels they can get away with.

And the "social" level of rental housing which is purely for short term emergency housing and subject to review and withdrawal at any regular interval if the operating authority feel that the tenant is no longer in dire need.

Council and housing association accommodation presumably fall into category two ?

And it is still possible for tenants in category one to receive housing benefits to cover all or most of their private landlord rents ?

Re: Housing : Mon Dec 02, 2013 7:25 pm  

Mintball wrote:

You talked of hypocrisy. I asked you for evidence. I'm still waiting.

Not on this thread I didn't?

Re: Housing : Mon Dec 02, 2013 7:33 pm  

Him wrote:

No, that is not trickle-down economics.


They can easily sell them if they reduce the price.

Interesting which threads you're choosing to post on at the moment.

Grow up - you are like a little kid up sides with the majority rather than fight his own battles - you jump on everyone else's points when you think they have one up on someone - grow some balls!!

If it isn't trickle down economics what is it?

They cannot reduce the price and make a profit - simple economics really - do you think they should sell them at a loss - seriously, BMW would sell thousands more cars if they sold them at the same price as a smart car but they would be bankrupt!!

I have posted on the other thread just for you!!

Re: Housing : Mon Dec 02, 2013 7:41 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Since we moved seriously to an economy based on neo-liberal ideology ('trickle down'/Reaganomics/Thatcherism), the cost of living has risen but income has declined for all but a very few.

We now have foodbanks growing massive;y, the Red Cross organising food parcels for UK people, Save the Children spending money in the UK rather than simply collecting it – and this in something like the seventh richest nation on Earth.

Trickle down is not working – and it never has.

Or ...

We could have a massive programme of building council housing that would be affordable for anyone, not just a few, or only on the basis of insane mortgages.

We are short hundreds of thousands of homes precisely because we have not, as a nation, built affordable housing for 20-odd years, not because the housing market has stalled a bit. Indeed, in the last year or so, the housing market has been going bonkers, with prices rising again massively. Housing is being built – and some of it is not even being put up for sale in this country, but advertised in the Far East. There's masses of building going on in my part of London – with prices in the ridiculous brackets for a one-bed flat on City Road, just north of Old Street: hardly a gentrified, quiet area.

The situation is unsustainable. And it's also completely counterproductive in terms of the national economy.

We have some food banks and that is a reflection of the average standard of living - are you serious? Compare that to the turn of the 20th century and you are seriously suggesting that the average household is worse off now than it was then - you are seriously suggesting that?

Mortgages have never been as cheap as they are now - the problem is finding the deposit.

I take you point about council housing - is that the best use of borrowed money because that is what the rate payers will have to subsidise for many years?

Re: Housing : Mon Dec 02, 2013 7:42 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Not on this thread I didn't?

On which thread have you answered with the evidence?

Re: Housing : Mon Dec 02, 2013 7:46 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

We have some food banks and that is a reflection of the average standard of living - are you serious? Compare that to the turn of the 20th century and you are seriously suggesting that the average household is worse off now than it was then - you are seriously suggesting that?

We are, in general, worse off than we were 30 years ago.

That is a fact, pretty universally acknowledged.

Sal Paradise wrote:

Mortgages have never been as cheap as they are now - the problem is finding the deposit...

A one-bed flat for over a quarter of a million is a wonderfully sensible price, and any mortgage on it for anyone on less than £83,000 recurring per annum is on a sensible and sane mortgage.

I look forward to your calls for street sweepers and cleaners to be on that sort of a wage.

Sal Paradise wrote:

I take you point about council housing - is that the best use of borrowed money because that is what the rate payers will have to subsidise for many years?

I don't know whether it would be the best, but it would be good. At present, we're subsidising a lack of genuinely affordable housing – huge amounts of benefits and failing local economies. So even if it wouldn't be quite the very best, it would be good.




Incidentally: thank you for making some effort to respond properly. Thats why you are in no danger of being bounced off for being a troll.

Doesn't mean you shouldn't answer a number if outstanding questions, though.

Re: Housing : Mon Dec 02, 2013 9:57 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Grow up - you are like a little kid up sides with the majority rather than fight his own battles - you jump on everyone else's points when you think they have one up on someone - grow some balls!!

You seem to have a problem with anyone who asks you a question or challenges any point you make. Sad to say, if you didn't keep making things up maybe you wouldn't keep getting challenged. Or maybe, as Mintball said, if you actually answered any questions put to you about your often inflammatory posts.

Sal Paradise wrote:

If it isn't trickle down economics what is it?

An increase in living standards over 100+ years? I'd guess at a combination of economic growth and technological, educational and social advances. Highly unlikely to be an economic policy that wasn't in force for the majority of that period and living standards had been increasing well before the period you specified.

Sal Paradise wrote:

They cannot reduce the price and make a profit - simple economics really - do you think they should sell them at a loss - seriously, BMW would sell thousands more cars if they sold them at the same price as a smart car but they would be bankrupt!!

Really? House prices have increased by at least 100% in real terms in the last 20 years. Have building costs really risen by that much? Simple economics would indicate that house prices are a combination of building costs, ease of mortgage acquisition and wages ie supply and demand.
Housing, due to mortgages and a couple of other factors, is unlike any other "product" but BMW are a great example of premium pricing.

Sal Paradise wrote:

I have posted on the other thread just for you!!

Which thread? The Asda one? Grangemouth? Or the one on the Leeds board where you said Gary Hetherington single-handedly made Nigel Wood Chairman of the RFL?

Re: Housing : Mon Dec 02, 2013 10:03 pm  

Him wrote:

... Gary Hetherington single-handedly made Nigel Wood Chairman of the RFL?

He did?

Re: Housing : Mon Dec 02, 2013 11:23 pm  

Mintball wrote: He did? Oh yes. He made things up and attempted to wriggle out of it and then disappeared. A regular tactic. viewtopic.php?f=17&t=560502&tsmp=1386026486&start=130 It's all funny, but page 14 onwards is particularly amusing.

Mintball wrote: He did? Oh yes. He made things up and attempted to wriggle out of it and then disappeared. A regular tactic. viewtopic.php?f=17&t=560502&tsmp=1386026486&start=130 It's all funny, but page 14 onwards is particularly amusing.