Nissan pulling out of Sunderland

[John52]

pelmetman - 2016-10-01 10:39 AM

 

Tesco are basically being beaten at their own game *-) ..........They no longer stack it high and sell it cheap, but prefer to buy private jets for boss..........so in my view only have themselves to blame :-| ........

 

 

 

Tesco's private jets are gone.

What about those of Germany's richest man who inherited Aldi?

[Guest pelmetman]

Violet1956 - 2016-10-01 10:38 AM

 

Not any day soon according to Ken (and my bank balance) sadly.

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/09/ken-clarke-theresa-may-has-no-idea-what-do-about-brexit ;-)

 

The whinging of a old has been, who's doom and gloom prophesy proved to be mere scaremongering, along with all the other remainers (lol) .......

 

I wonder what the remainers will blame next on BREXIT *-) .......

 

 

[John52]

StuartO - 2016-10-01 10:40 AM

Violet1956 - 2016-10-01 8:59 AM ....Touched a raw nerve with me John. My parents bought their council house in the 70s and did what everyone did first and changed the "municipal" front door. I was pleased for them at first but dismayed when there was no re-investment in the public housing stock. That oft seen photo of Maggie in patronising mode in a council house kitchen sickens me. So much of the public housing stock in London in prime locations has ended up in private landlord portfolios and now attract enormous rents. Biggest scam of the last century IMO.

 

It wasn't your parents fault that there was no reinvestment surely?  And was it ever promised that the proceeds would be used to replace housing stock - surely the objective was to reduce the levels of public housing?

 

And the houses which ended up in the hands of private landlords were presumably sold (either for profit or for personal reasons) by the former council house tenants?

 

How was it a "scam" (i.e. fraudulent deception) to give people an opportunity to be home owners?  Where was the deception and how was it fraudulent?

 

Or do you mean that in retrospect the scheme didn't fit with your ideas (because it did reduce public housing stock) and you would have done it differently and denied your parents their opportunity?

 

My cousin was a very left wing socialist and he disapproved of the scheme at the time but he encouraged his mum, a council house tenant, to profit from it.

Thse who bought the houses weren't scammed obviously.It was the rest of the public who owned the houses who were scammed, cheated out of their true value to buy votes for Thatcher.I don't blame those who take advantage of the system (some of whom are friends), but those who devised the system.

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2016-10-01 10:44 AM

 

pelmetman - 2016-10-01 10:39 AM

 

Tesco are basically being beaten at their own game *-) ..........They no longer stack it high and sell it cheap, but prefer to buy private jets for boss..........so in my view only have themselves to blame :-| ........

 

 

 

Tesco's private jets are gone.

What about those of Germany's richest man who inherited Aldi?

 

What about Arthur Scargill and his very nice London flat?.......It appears even Socialists are not adverse to a bit of unearned benefit ;-) .......

 

 

[John52]

Of course selling council houses is only part of the problem.

The biggest problem is the so called 'free market' Government intervening in the housing market. Restricting the supply of houses with the world's most onerous planning system, at the same time as fuelling demand with taxpayer subsidies like the so called 'Help to Buy'

The housing crisis is the root cause of Britain's economic problems including Brexit - cramming people into a tiny space gets them fighting like rats in a sack - blame immigrants for the housing shortage - Divide and Rule again.

[John52]

pelmetman - 2016-10-01 10:55 AM

 

What about Arthur Scargill and his very nice London flat?.......It appears even Socialists are not adverse to a bit of unearned benefit ;-) .......

 

 

I am no fan of Scargill. He started with a big union and a small house, and finished with a small union and a big house *-)

But I must admit he might have done more to earn his London flat than some MP's?

[John52]

Violet1956 - 2016-10-01 8:59 AM

My parents bought their council house in the 70s

I don't blame them I would have done the same.

I carpetbagged the Building Societies, and made money on the power/water/telecoms/mail privatisations, even though I disagreed with it.

I voted against it but couldn't stop it happening. So I thought if someone is going to profit from this it might as well be me :-S

[Violet1956]

StuartO - 2016-10-01 10:40 AM

Violet1956 - 2016-10-01 8:59 AM ....Touched a raw nerve with me John. My parents bought their council house in the 70s and did what everyone did first and changed the "municipal" front door. I was pleased for them at first but dismayed when there was no re-investment in the public housing stock. That oft seen photo of Maggie in patronising mode in a council house kitchen sickens me. So much of the public housing stock in London in prime locations has ended up in private landlord portfolios and now attract enormous rents. Biggest scam of the last century IMO.

 

It wasn't your parents fault that there was no reinvestment surely?  And was it ever promised that the proceeds would be used to replace housing stock - surely the objective was to reduce the levels of public housing?

 

And the houses which ended up in the hands of private landlords were presumably sold (either for profit or for personal reasons) by the former council house tenants?

 

How was it a "scam" (i.e. fraudulent deception) to give people an opportunity to be home owners?  Where was the deception and how was it fraudulent?

 

Or do you mean that in retrospect the scheme didn't fit with your ideas (because it did reduce public housing stock) and you would have done it differently and denied your parents their opportunity?

 

My cousin was a very left wing socialist and he disapproved of the scheme at the time but he encouraged his mum, a council house tenant, to profit from it.

I don't blame my parents for what happened to the public housing stock. It was a truly uplifting experience for them. If they had lived to see the current housing crisis I don't know whether they would still take so much joy from it although my ma was a committed Tory all her life. As John says they weren't scammed the British public were. I think it is nothing short of a scandal that what has now happened is that councils have to pay housing benefit to cover the extortionate rents charged by private landlords who bought up what was originally part of their housing stock on the cheap. Maggies' worst legacy as far as the taxpayer is concerned:-(

[antony1969]

John52 - 2016-10-01 11:07 AM

 

pelmetman - 2016-10-01 10:55 AM

 

What about Arthur Scargill and his very nice London flat?.......It appears even Socialists are not adverse to a bit of unearned benefit ;-) .......

 

 

I am no fan of Scargill. He started with a big union and a small house, and finished with a small union and a big house *-)

But I must admit he might have done more to earn his London flat than some MP's?

 

My missus comes from a big mining background ... Scargill was a God like figure to the miners for years , I remember going to one of her relatives do's and almost getting lynched by the lot of em after I called Scargill a rude name ... You'd be lucky to find any of those who worshipped him to now say anything good about him , he's a much hated fella ... As for council house buying ... The wifes life long Labour voter and union member father despises the Tories , regularly went to Wapping for the strikes and got involved in the miners strike even though no longer a miner at the time ... Bought his own council house in the 80s ??? .... Kinda sums him up and many like him

[StuartO]

Violet1956 - 2016-10-01 11:37 AM I don't blame my parents for what happened to the public housing stock. It was a truly uplifting experience for them.

 

And that was precisely its purpose.

 

If they had lived to see the current housing crisis I don't know whether they would still take so much joy from it although my ma was a committed Tory all her life.

 

In which case she probably would do, wouldn't she.

 

...they weren't scammed the British public were.

 

I ask again, how was it a scam? Where was the deception of the public and how was it fraudulent?

 

  I think it is nothing short of a scandal that ... councils have to pay housing benefit to cover the extortionate rents charged by private landlords who bought up what was originally part of their housing stock on the cheap.

 

But private landlords have to buy properties at the market price and cannot buy former council houses except from former council tenants (or their heirs) who want to cash in. 

 

Former council house are often blighted in terms value (by the fact that they are in council house estates, among ill-kept houses occupied by poor tenants, so selling them to landlords might be the only realistic way for owner-occupiers to cash in. 

 

And private landlords can only charge the rent which the market will bear for a property so while you might think they are asking "extortionate" rents there will almost invariably be a market reason for that rental figure and in the case of former council houses it will reflect the risk of renting to the poor tenants who might be the only sort who would willingly live on a council estate - and who are more likely that most tenants to trash the place.

 

I'm a landlord but I wouldn't dream of buying a former council house to rent out.  I bought the property at the market rate and I charge whatever the market will stand in the way of rent, not least because I have to cover all sorts of periodic servicing and inspections and install additional safety features whenever some do-gooder dreams up another theoretical risk, eg the risk of Legionaires Disease, no case of which has ever occurred in a house, but I still have to pay for an expert periodic check. 

 

Tenants are well protected from exploitative landlords, even if they don't play fair themselves.  If a tenant trashes the place or stops paying rent it will take months and months to get them out and cost me lots in fees etc as well as lost rental income, so I wouldn't dream of renting to anyone who wasn't in work or on a private pension and didn't have a good reference, it's just not worth the risk. 

 

Don't bundle me with exploitative landlords; I look after the property well and my tenants get a good deal.  Last year I had to replace two fogged-up double glazing units, a rotting wooden side porch with a modern plastic one costing £6,000, dry line a damp meter cupboard to cure condensation, replace the bath, taps and shower valve and dig up the drains to replace a dropped section.  And if I manage to make any profit, which I didn't that year, I have to pay income tax on it at my top rate.

 

Former council houses are exactly that, so once they were sold (always to a sitting council tenant) the council lost all rights over that property, same as with any other property sale.  The council could of course buy them back as they become available on the market, and at the blighted price for which they will inevitably sell. 

 

But you think that because they were once council houses the public still has a legitimate equity interest in them - so would you repossess them if you could?  And would that include from owner-occupiers like your parents or just from landlords?

 

[Violet1956]

StuartO - 2016-10-01 3:13 PM

Violet1956 - 2016-10-01 11:37 AM I don't blame my parents for what happened to the public housing stock. It was a truly uplifting experience for them.

 

And that was precisely its purpose.

 

If they had lived to see the current housing crisis I don't know whether they would still take so much joy from it although my ma was a committed Tory all her life.

 

In which case she probably would do, wouldn't she.

 

...they weren't scammed the British public were.

 

I ask again, how was it a scam? Where was the deception of the public and how was it fraudulent?

 

  I think it is nothing short of a scandal that ... councils have to pay housing benefit to cover the extortionate rents charged by private landlords who bought up what was originally part of their housing stock on the cheap.

 

But private landlords have to buy properties at the market price and cannot buy former council houses except from former council tenants (or their heirs) who want to cash in. 

 

Former council house are often blighted in terms value (by the fact that they are in council house estates, among ill-kept houses occupied by poor tenants, so selling them to landlords might be the only realistic way for owner-occupiers to cash in. 

 

And private landlords can only charge the rent which the market will bear for a property so while you might think they are asking "extortionate" rents there will almost invariably be a market reason for that rental figure and in the case of former council houses it will reflect the risk of renting to the poor tenants who might be the only sort who would willingly live on a council estate - and who are more likely that most tenants to trash the place.

 

I'm a landlord but I wouldn't dream of buying a former council house to rent out.  I bought the property at the market rate and I charge whatever the market will stand in the way of rent, not least because I have to cover all sorts of periodic servicing and inspections and install additional safety features whenever some do-gooder dreams up another theoretical risk, eg the risk of Legionaires Disease, no case of which has ever occurred in a house, but I still have to pay for an expert periodic check. 

 

Tenants are well protected from exploitative landlords, even if they don't play fair themselves.  If a tenant trashes the place or stops paying rent it will take months and months to get them out and cost me lots in fees etc as well as lost rental income, so I wouldn't dream of renting to anyone who wasn't in work or on a private pension and didn't have a good reference, it's just not worth the risk. 

 

Don't bundle me with exploitative landlords; I look after the property well and my tenants get a good deal.  Last year I had to replace two fogged-up double glazing units, a rotting wooden side porch with a modern plastic one costing £6,000, dry line a damp meter cupboard to cure condensation, replace the bath, taps and shower valve and dig up the drains to replace a dropped section.  And if I manage to make any profit, which I didn't that year, I have to pay income tax on it at my top rate.

 

Former council houses are exactly that, so once they were sold (always to a sitting council tenant) the council lost all rights over that property, same as with any other property sale.  The council could of course buy them back as they become available on the market, and at the blighted price for which they will inevitably sell. 

 

But you think that because they were once council houses the public still has a legitimate equity interest in them - so would you repossess them if you could?  And would that include from owner-occupiers like your parents or just from landlords?

Beats me why you are a landlord at all. Nothing in it for you then. I would ask the councils to buy them all back so that those poor landlords who now own the old housing stock didn't have to suffer so much. :-)

[david lloyd]

StuartO - 2016-10-01 3:13 PM

Violet1956 - 2016-10-01 11:37 AM I don't blame my parents for what happened to the public housing stock. It was a truly uplifting experience for them.

 

And that was precisely its purpose.

 

If they had lived to see the current housing crisis I don't know whether they would still take so much joy from it although my ma was a committed Tory all her life.

 

In which case she probably would do, wouldn't she.

 

...they weren't scammed the British public were.

 

I ask again, how was it a scam? Where was the deception of the public and how was it fraudulent?

 

  I think it is nothing short of a scandal that ... councils have to pay housing benefit to cover the extortionate rents charged by private landlords who bought up what was originally part of their housing stock on the cheap.

 

But private landlords have to buy properties at the market price and cannot buy former council houses except from former council tenants (or their heirs) who want to cash in. 

 

Former council house are often blighted in terms value (by the fact that they are in council house estates, among ill-kept houses occupied by poor tenants, so selling them to landlords might be the only realistic way for owner-occupiers to cash in. 

 

And private landlords can only charge the rent which the market will bear for a property so while you might think they are asking "extortionate" rents there will almost invariably be a market reason for that rental figure and in the case of former council houses it will reflect the risk of renting to the poor tenants who might be the only sort who would willingly live on a council estate - and who are more likely that most tenants to trash the place.

 

I'm a landlord but I wouldn't dream of buying a former council house to rent out.  I bought the property at the market rate and I charge whatever the market will stand in the way of rent, not least because I have to cover all sorts of periodic servicing and inspections and install additional safety features whenever some do-gooder dreams up another theoretical risk, eg the risk of Legionaires Disease, no case of which has ever occurred in a house, but I still have to pay for an expert periodic check. 

 

Tenants are well protected from exploitative landlords, even if they don't play fair themselves.  If a tenant trashes the place or stops paying rent it will take months and months to get them out and cost me lots in fees etc as well as lost rental income, so I wouldn't dream of renting to anyone who wasn't in work or on a private pension and didn't have a good reference, it's just not worth the risk. 

 

Don't bundle me with exploitative landlords; I look after the property well and my tenants get a good deal.  Last year I had to replace two fogged-up double glazing units, a rotting wooden side porch with a modern plastic one costing £6,000, dry line a damp meter cupboard to cure condensation, replace the bath, taps and shower valve and dig up the drains to replace a dropped section.  And if I manage to make any profit, which I didn't that year, I have to pay income tax on it at my top rate.

 

Former council houses are exactly that, so once they were sold (always to a sitting council tenant) the council lost all rights over that property, same as with any other property sale.  The council could of course buy them back as they become available on the market, and at the blighted price for which they will inevitably sell. 

 

But you think that because they were once council houses the public still has a legitimate equity interest in them - so would you repossess them if you could?  And would that include from owner-occupiers like your parents or just from landlords?

I think you answer your own question regarding how the general public were 'scammed' by the sale of council housing stock - you volunteered that you paid the market rate for your property to rent out - whereas council houses were (and still are) sold at huge discounts to sitting tenants. These were/are properties built at market value prices using public money from you and I and although some may say it is fair that sitting tenants should get a discount for all the years they have paid rent I wonder how many landlords would willingly sell their investment to a sitting tenant at a huge discount for the same reason? As you say,mint is an expensive business looking after a rented property and all the council houses that were sold off had undoubtedly had time and money spent on them to maintain them. Maybe times have changed but I well remember the time when my grand parents council house was not only repaired as and when required but was repainted every five years or so. This too was public money but much of it has found its way into private hands.

[StuartO]

Violet1956 - 2016-10-01 7:22 PMBeats me why you are a landlord at all. Nothing in it for you then. I would ask the councils to buy them all back so that those poor landlords who now own the old housing stock didn't have to suffer so much. :-)

 

Presumably councils don't buy the council houses back when they become available because they don't have either the funds or the freedom to do it these days.  There will be plenty of left wing councils in UK which would presumably do it like a shot if they could.

 

My wife and I ended up as a landlords when we redirected contributions to my wife's pension fund into property because unfortunately we had trusted in Equitable Life and suffered quite a loss.  It's only property investment in a small way (two two-bed semis) and we had an unlucky run with repairs but hopefully that was something of a one-off and they should pay their way from now on.

 

Our tenants are a young married couple in one and a mature working couple in the other.  Both are what you would probably call working class and both keep the properties very well - they are houseproud types, so we respond by not skimping or delaying when it comes to repairs, even though it gobbled up all the rent last year.  Both seem to want to rent long term although in the case of the young couple, this is primarily because they haven't saved for a deposit and cannot currently get a mortgage.  They have a newborn child and the lady stays at home to look after him.

 

We are not hard-nosed landlords and wouldn't want to be but of course we do need to get some income from the properties because it's more or less the only source of pension my wife has.  Our tenants are nice people, we'd like to keep them and we think the feeling is mutual.  From our viewpoint it's a better way of using as well as safeguarding our savings than letting Equitable Life look after them for us.

 

Now what's wrong with  that?  What use do you make of your savings?  And please tell me why you think selling off council houses was a "scam" on the British people, you still haven't explained.

 

[antony1969]

david lloyd - 2016-10-01 7:56 PM

StuartO - 2016-10-01 3:13 PM

Violet1956 - 2016-10-01 11:37 AM I don't blame my parents for what happened to the public housing stock. It was a truly uplifting experience for them.

 

And that was precisely its purpose.

 

If they had lived to see the current housing crisis I don't know whether they would still take so much joy from it although my ma was a committed Tory all her life.

 

In which case she probably would do, wouldn't she.

 

...they weren't scammed the British public were.

 

I ask again, how was it a scam? Where was the deception of the public and how was it fraudulent?

 

  I think it is nothing short of a scandal that ... councils have to pay housing benefit to cover the extortionate rents charged by private landlords who bought up what was originally part of their housing stock on the cheap.

 

But private landlords have to buy properties at the market price and cannot buy former council houses except from former council tenants (or their heirs) who want to cash in. 

 

Former council house are often blighted in terms value (by the fact that they are in council house estates, among ill-kept houses occupied by poor tenants, so selling them to landlords might be the only realistic way for owner-occupiers to cash in. 

 

And private landlords can only charge the rent which the market will bear for a property so while you might think they are asking "extortionate" rents there will almost invariably be a market reason for that rental figure and in the case of former council houses it will reflect the risk of renting to the poor tenants who might be the only sort who would willingly live on a council estate - and who are more likely that most tenants to trash the place.

 

I'm a landlord but I wouldn't dream of buying a former council house to rent out.  I bought the property at the market rate and I charge whatever the market will stand in the way of rent, not least because I have to cover all sorts of periodic servicing and inspections and install additional safety features whenever some do-gooder dreams up another theoretical risk, eg the risk of Legionaires Disease, no case of which has ever occurred in a house, but I still have to pay for an expert periodic check. 

 

Tenants are well protected from exploitative landlords, even if they don't play fair themselves.  If a tenant trashes the place or stops paying rent it will take months and months to get them out and cost me lots in fees etc as well as lost rental income, so I wouldn't dream of renting to anyone who wasn't in work or on a private pension and didn't have a good reference, it's just not worth the risk. 

 

Don't bundle me with exploitative landlords; I look after the property well and my tenants get a good deal.  Last year I had to replace two fogged-up double glazing units, a rotting wooden side porch with a modern plastic one costing £6,000, dry line a damp meter cupboard to cure condensation, replace the bath, taps and shower valve and dig up the drains to replace a dropped section.  And if I manage to make any profit, which I didn't that year, I have to pay income tax on it at my top rate.

 

Former council houses are exactly that, so once they were sold (always to a sitting council tenant) the council lost all rights over that property, same as with any other property sale.  The council could of course buy them back as they become available on the market, and at the blighted price for which they will inevitably sell. 

 

But you think that because they were once council houses the public still has a legitimate equity interest in them - so would you repossess them if you could?  And would that include from owner-occupiers like your parents or just from landlords?

I think you answer your own question regarding how the general public were 'scammed' by the sale of council housing stock - you volunteered that you paid the market rate for your property to rent out - whereas council houses were (and still are) sold at huge discounts to sitting tenants. These were/are properties built at market value prices using public money from you and I and although some may say it is fair that sitting tenants should get a discount for all the years they have paid rent I wonder how many landlords would willingly sell their investment to a sitting tenant at a huge discount for the same reason? As you say,mint is an expensive business looking after a rented property and all the council houses that were sold off had undoubtedly had time and money spent on them to maintain them. Maybe times have changed but I well remember the time when my grand parents council house was not only repaired as and when required but was repainted every five years or so. This too was public money but much of it has found its way into private hands.

I remember the houses getting repaired too and the great cost to the taxpayer ... At least 3 major estates in Huddersfield I can remember having millions thrown at them out of our money and not long after looking like dumps again ... Those same houses now are either tenant owned or landlord owned so no further upkeep cost to the tax payer and no need to have hundreds of council repair men living it cushy too on the back of them ... A win - win I think for the tax payer

[StuartO]

david lloyd - 2016-10-01 7:56 PM I think you answer your own question regarding how the general public were 'scammed' by the sale of council housing stock - you volunteered that you paid the market rate for your property to rent out - whereas council houses were (and still are) sold at huge discounts to sitting tenants. These were/are properties built at market value prices using public money from you and I and although some may say it is fair that sitting tenants should get a discount for all the years they have paid rent I wonder how many landlords would willingly sell their investment to a sitting tenant at a huge discount for the same reason? As you say,mint is an expensive business looking after a rented property and all the council houses that were sold off had undoubtedly had time and money spent on them to maintain them. Maybe times have changed but I well remember the time when my grand parents council house was not only repaired as and when required but was repainted every five years or so. This too was public money but much of it has found its way into private hands.

It's not really a valid argument that the council houses were sold off too cheaply because they have had blighted value ever since and could probably be bought back by the council for a similar value to that for which they were sold.  Their market value (before discount) was overestimated when they were sold because the blighting was not allowed for.  Only if a whole council estate was sold to a developer with vacant possession might it be possible to realise their full potential value by refurbishing them all and selling them all as newly available houses in good condition and with no nasty neighbours.

 

Likewise you can hardly count the cost of painting the houses every five years (and other maintenance costs) as adding capital value to the properties.  Their value as properties is what a willing buyer will pay a willing seller on the open market.  Nasty neighbours can adversely affect the value of any property.

 

If you check the dictionary definition of "scam" you will find it involves fraudulent deception.  I suspect you are using the word in this context to mean something different, like selling off what you regard as the family silver.

 

[Violet1956]

StuartO - 2016-10-01 8:16 PM

Violet1956 - 2016-10-01 7:22 PMBeats me why you are a landlord at all. Nothing in it for you then. I would ask the councils to buy them all back so that those poor landlords who now own the old housing stock didn't have to suffer so much. :-)

 

Presumably councils don't buy the council houses back when they become available because they don't have either the funds or the freedom to do it these days.  There will be plenty of left wing councils in UK which would presumably do it like a shot if they could.

 

My wife and I ended up as a landlords when we redirected contributions to my wife's pension fund into property because unfortunately we had trusted in Equitable Life and suffered quite a loss.  It's only property investment in a small way (two two-bed semis) and we had an unlucky run with repairs but hopefully that was something of a one-off and they should pay their way from now on.

 

Our tenants are a young married couple in one and a mature working couple in the other.  Both are what you would probably call working class and both keep the properties very well - they are houseproud types, so we respond by not skimping or delaying when it comes to repairs, even though it gobbled up all the rent last year.  Both seem to want to rent long term although in the case of the young couple, this is primarily because they haven't saved for a deposit and cannot currently get a mortgage.  They have a newborn child and the lady stays at home to look after him.

 

We are not hard-nosed landlords and wouldn't want to be but of course we do need to get some income from the properties because it's more or less the only source of pension my wife has.  Our tenants are nice people, we'd like to keep them and we think the feeling is mutual.  From our viewpoint it's a better way of using as well as safeguarding our savings than letting Equitable Life look after them for us.

 

Now what's wrong with  that?  What use do you make of your savings?  And please tell me why you think selling off council houses was a "scam" on the British people, you still haven't explained.

Never said there was anything wrong with what you have done Stuart. I merely questioned why you would have invested in the buy to let market as you seemed to be representing it as all pain no gain. It seems you have made a wise investment and it is mutually beneficial for you and your tenants.The sale of council houses which took off big time in Thatcher's time was a scam because it was sold as being some kind of exercise in benign largesse to tenants. It wasn't really to benefit council tenants but to reduce investment and expenditure on social housing. If it truly had been an attempt to improve the lives of people who otherwise could not afford to buy their own homes the money gained from the sales would have been invested in more social housing. I think I also said that I agree with what John52 has said about how it was a scam. When I mentioned landlords charging extortionate rents I wasn't speaking of all landlords because in some areas the market just doesn't allow them to do so. There were however council properties sold off in prime London locations for example that are now in private hands which people on low incomes could never afford to rent. Taxpayers have been lining the pockets of private investors through housing benefit because publicly owned housing was sold off. I'm none too happy about that. :-(

[John52]

StuartO - 2016-10-01 8:41 PM

It's not really a valid argument that the council houses were sold off too cheaply

Try looking at actual figures of what they were sold for and the market value in most areas.

 

[antony1969]

John52 - 2016-10-02 6:40 AM

 

StuartO - 2016-10-01 8:41 PM

It's not really a valid argument that the council houses were sold off too cheaply

Try looking at actual figures of what they were sold for and the market value in most areas.

 

You couldn't have given the houses away to most folk where my missus was brought up ... No one other than the tenants would have wanted to buy them ... I'd say they went for a fair price , now as most on that estate are privately owned its a different , pleasant world and no longer a burden on the taxpayer through upkeep and unpaid , unrealistic rents ... Good deal all round for the tax payer and for those mainly Labour voters who bought em

[John52]

antony1969 - 2016-10-02 7:56 AM

 

Good deal all round for the tax payer

Just look at the ever rising Housing Benefit Bill.

How can it be a good deal for the tax payer (let alone those in London spending an average 60% of their income on rent) When the taxpayer has to make up the difference between wages and grossly inflated rents?

(PS: or subsidise inflated house prices through the absurdly named 'Help to Buy? stoking up demand for the limited supply' )

[antony1969]

John52 - 2016-10-02 8:29 AM

 

antony1969 - 2016-10-02 7:56 AM

 

Good deal all round for the tax payer

Just look at the ever rising Housing Benefit Bill.

How can it be a good deal for the tax payer (let alone those in London spending an average 60% of their income on rent) When the taxpayer has to make up the difference between wages and grossly inflated rents?

(PS: or subsidise inflated house prices through the absurdly named 'Help to Buy? stoking up demand for the limited supply' )

 

Help to Buy surely can only be a win ... Purchases of more houses means land sold , tax ... Houses built , tax ... Builders / joiners / roofers and the rest , tax ... Surely the bit of government help to purchase is nothing compared to the gains ??

Your London rent prices doesn't seem to put off half the worlds population who want to come and live in that dirty place does it ??

 

[Guest pelmetman]

antony1969 - 2016-10-02 9:23 AM

 

John52 - 2016-10-02 8:29 AM

 

antony1969 - 2016-10-02 7:56 AM

 

Good deal all round for the tax payer

Just look at the ever rising Housing Benefit Bill.

How can it be a good deal for the tax payer (let alone those in London spending an average 60% of their income on rent) When the taxpayer has to make up the difference between wages and grossly inflated rents?

(PS: or subsidise inflated house prices through the absurdly named 'Help to Buy? stoking up demand for the limited supply' )

 

Help to Buy surely can only be a win ... Purchases of more houses means land sold , tax ... Houses built , tax ... Builders / joiners / roofers and the rest , tax ... Surely the bit of government help to purchase is nothing compared to the gains ??

Your London rent prices doesn't seem to put off half the worlds population who want to come and live in that dirty place does it ??

 

Beats me why anyone would want to live in the place 8-) .........according to the last census not many Brits want to either >:-) ........

 

As far as I'm concerned London should be fenced of from the rest of the UK :D .........Maybe a fence all the way from Calais would solve a few problems ;-) .......

 

 

[Violet1956]

antony1969 - 2016-10-02 9:23 AM

 

John52 - 2016-10-02 8:29 AM

 

antony1969 - 2016-10-02 7:56 AM

 

 

 

Your London rent prices doesn't seem to put off half the worlds population who want to come and live in that dirty place does it ??

 

Bit of an overstatement Anthony? 3.7 Billion people want to come to London? Hyperbole adds nothing to the discussion. :-(

[Violet1956]

Theresa's on the telly. Must dash. :-)

[antony1969]

Violet1956 - 2016-10-02 9:56 AM

 

antony1969 - 2016-10-02 9:23 AM

 

John52 - 2016-10-02 8:29 AM

 

antony1969 - 2016-10-02 7:56 AM

 

 

 

Your London rent prices doesn't seem to put off half the worlds population who want to come and live in that dirty place does it ??

 

Bit of an overstatement Anthony? 3.7 Billion people want to come to London? Hyperbole adds nothing to the discussion. :-(

 

Personally I thought I was under the true figure but hey-ho ... Suppose the rest are already in Boston , Lincs anyway

[Violet1956]

antony1969 - 2016-10-02 10:02 AM

 

Violet1956 - 2016-10-02 9:56 AM

 

antony1969 - 2016-10-02 9:23 AM

 

John52 - 2016-10-02 8:29 AM

 

antony1969 - 2016-10-02 7:56 AM

 

 

 

Your London rent prices doesn't seem to put off half the worlds population who want to come and live in that dirty place does it ??

 

Bit of an overstatement Anthony? 3.7 Billion people want to come to London? Hyperbole adds nothing to the discussion. :-(

 

Personally I thought I was under the true figure but hey-ho ... Suppose the rest are already in Boston , Lincs anyway

 

Of course and these billions of people have taken all the jobs or are idling around on street corners speaking in foreign tongues, they even have the nerve to open up their own shops. It's a disgrace. (lol)