Sod you - you live in this country
01 August 2013, 08:24 PM
#61
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It depends how you define wealth creation, and there are many ways to do that, and economists continue to argue the point. As a result we could go off on a tangent, which I think you enjoy doing.
To say the service landlords provide is to not kick you out of their property is juvenile and o'level debating society quality again.
It would be like saying the service the power supplier gives is to not cut your supply off.
The service the landlord gives is to provide you with a property to enjoy as your home. As such it should be properly maintained and safe from hazard.
The bottom line is this though Tony. You are a renter and as such you pay rent because you may well not be able to afford to buy the sort of place you would like to. As a result you are helping the landlord pay his mortgage and bolster his pension pot.
The landlord will become wealthier and when you both retire he will be the one sitting on a beach sipping a cold beer enjoying himself.
And to make you even happier Tony, when he dies he'll pass his properties onto his children who will become rich for doing nothing more than being born. They'll probably leverage those properties and buy even more properties. Happy days!
How does it feel to know that you are directly funding everything you hate about the system? I think it's hilarious and it gives me a semi (and I don't mean the kind you rent out)
To say the service landlords provide is to not kick you out of their property is juvenile and o'level debating society quality again.
It would be like saying the service the power supplier gives is to not cut your supply off.
The service the landlord gives is to provide you with a property to enjoy as your home. As such it should be properly maintained and safe from hazard.
The bottom line is this though Tony. You are a renter and as such you pay rent because you may well not be able to afford to buy the sort of place you would like to. As a result you are helping the landlord pay his mortgage and bolster his pension pot.
The landlord will become wealthier and when you both retire he will be the one sitting on a beach sipping a cold beer enjoying himself.
And to make you even happier Tony, when he dies he'll pass his properties onto his children who will become rich for doing nothing more than being born. They'll probably leverage those properties and buy even more properties. Happy days!
How does it feel to know that you are directly funding everything you hate about the system? I think it's hilarious and it gives me a semi (and I don't mean the kind you rent out
)As for your other point well you may as well trumped slavery because it enriches slave owners. It's totally nihilistic.
01 August 2013, 08:44 PM
#62
Scooby Regular
The bottom line is this though Tony. You are a renter and as such you pay rent because you may well not be able to afford to buy the sort of place you would like to. As a result you are helping the landlord pay his mortgage and bolster his pension pot.
The landlord will become wealthier and when you both retire he will be the one sitting on a beach sipping a cold beer enjoying himself.
And to make you even happier Tony, when he dies he'll pass his properties onto his children who will become rich for doing nothing more than being born. They'll probably leverage those properties and buy even more properties. Happy days!
How does it feel to know that you are directly funding everything you hate about the system? I think it's hilarious and it gives me a semi (and I don't mean the kind you rent out
)The status quo is preserved, the rich get richer
And interestingly, there is no inheritance tax on "agricultural" land, no wonder 5% of the population of the UK own 90% of the land
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 01 August 2013 at 08:45 PM.
01 August 2013, 09:04 PM
#64
Scooby Regular
The power company produces electricity, the landlord isn't providing everything. I can prove that the landlord is producing no wealth because with the counterfactual of no landlord, a house can still be enjoyed, so the role of the landlord is contingent upon law, and only neccesery because the law says it must be.
As for your other point well you may as well trumped slavery because it enriches slave owners. It's totally nihilistic.
As for your other point well you may as well trumped slavery because it enriches slave owners. It's totally nihilistic.
This is one of the most confused posts you've put together for a long time.
Are you talking about producing, providing or wealth creation? You've used the terms interchangeably within two sentences.
Please make your mind up
Your 'counterfactual' doesn't work either because without a landlord the house may have never been built. The renter can't afford to buy it so the builder will only build it if somebody is prepared to pay for it ie the landlord.
Try again
Last edited by Dingdongler; 01 August 2013 at 09:06 PM.
01 August 2013, 10:00 PM
#65
Scooby Regular
01 August 2013, 10:17 PM
#66
Scooby Regular
Interesting. Just finished watching this and funnily enough I know the area very well.
Amazing to see people turning down homes because they were a few floors up, didn't have a garden, no parking spaces etc.
Three/four bed period houses in quite poor condition sell for £550K+ all day long. Some two bed flats in the right quarter of that area will exceed £400k. Ex LA flats that look awful fetch £250k. Parts of Bow have £1million houses.
The private rent for just a room in a shabby house is £150/week.
It's just fascinating to see that when the tax payer is subsidising then people can be so fussy. If they can't afford the open market rent and don't need to be walking distance to The City shouldn't they just move further out? That's what people who are buying/renting privately do.
Last edited by Dingdongler; 01 August 2013 at 10:20 PM.
01 August 2013, 10:58 PM
#68
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is one of the most confused posts you've put together for a long time.
Are you talking about producing, providing or wealth creation? You've used the terms interchangeably within two sentences.
Please make your mind up
Your 'counterfactual' doesn't work either because without a landlord the house may have never been built. The renter can't afford to buy it so the builder will only build it if somebody is prepared to pay for it ie the landlord.
Try again
Are you talking about producing, providing or wealth creation? You've used the terms interchangeably within two sentences.
Please make your mind up
Your 'counterfactual' doesn't work either because without a landlord the house may have never been built. The renter can't afford to buy it so the builder will only build it if somebody is prepared to pay for it ie the landlord.
Try again
You already said that history is irrelevant regarding the appropriation of common land as private property, so how is it relevant that 100 years ago someone may have paid to build a house which is now rented by some BTL landlord. Anyway as we know the 'value' of property is the land itself, or more accurately we might say the monopoly licence that the state recognises and endorces which we call 'property'.
Last edited by tony de wonderful; 02 August 2013 at 12:57 AM.
02 August 2013, 12:36 AM
#69
Just out of sheer curiosity, didn't see the program but all we could afford in the East End was "hard to let" in the 70's.
Anything above 23rd floor or underground..... is there still a system of "hard to let" where if you didn't have a lot of money the council would offer you something you wouldn't let a rabid dog live in..........but you still took it?
Shaun
Anything above 23rd floor or underground..... is there still a system of "hard to let" where if you didn't have a lot of money the council would offer you something you wouldn't let a rabid dog live in..........but you still took it?
Shaun
02 August 2013, 06:17 PM
#70
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any help you receive financially in one area frees up more money elsewhere, in that if you were putting all your children through private schooling and paying for private healthcare then your 'other' life choices may well have been restricted.
I assume (correct me if I am wrong) that your current location was influenced by the fact that the local state schools score highly and there is perhaps a similar hospital nearby. Effectively you have cherry-picked the benefits the state provides in order to facilitate a more comfortable lifestyle.
It would be interesting to know the monetary value of those 'cherries', as some might question why you qualify for free education and healthcare for all your family when you are able to pay for it yourself, and most likely the bulk of this cost is currently the children (as opposed to you and partner) and the children were a choice you made on a personal level without seeking approval from the state first.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
28
28 December 2015 11:07 PM
Sub-Subaru
General Technical
1
28 September 2015 12:47 PM