Resend my activation email : Register : Log in 
BCF: Bike Chat Forums


Towering Inferno

Reply to topic
Bike Chat Forums Index -> Politics & Current Affairs Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 31, 32, 33 ... 35, 36, 37  Next
View previous topic : View next topic  
Author Message

Rogerborg
nimbA



Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Karma :

PostPosted: 17:47 - 06 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

sickpup wrote:
It should be pretty obvious, neither he nor his family receive benefits

I'll check the personnel records, but wasn't he trigged by his mum's benefits being cut when they found out that she had an adult son Living At Home?

Let's wait for confirmation or refutation before deciding his fate.
____________________
Biking is 1/20th as dangerous as horse riding.
GONE: HN125-8, LF-250B, GPz 305, GPZ 500S, Burgman 400 // RIDING: F650GS (800 twin), Royal Enfield Bullet Electra 500 AVL, Ninja 250R because racebike
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

sickpup
Old Timer



Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Karma :

PostPosted: 18:13 - 06 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rogerborg wrote:
I'll check the personnel records, but wasn't he trigged by his mum's benefits being cut when they found out that she had an adult son Living At Home?

Let's wait for confirmation or refutation before deciding his fate.


As I said I was making some assumptions.

Lets assume for a moment that there are no benefits of any kind, is LA housing still subsidised and if so why because at the moment I could also accuse you of cultural missappropriation the way you are dancing around this subject like an American indian around a fire without telling me where the subsidy is?


Last edited by sickpup on 18:15 - 06 Jun 2018; edited 1 time in total
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Rogerborg
nimbA



Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Karma :

PostPosted: 18:15 - 06 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

Couldn't I assume something more realistic, like an attractive, man-friendly feminist?
____________________
Biking is 1/20th as dangerous as horse riding.
GONE: HN125-8, LF-250B, GPz 305, GPZ 500S, Burgman 400 // RIDING: F650GS (800 twin), Royal Enfield Bullet Electra 500 AVL, Ninja 250R because racebike
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

sickpup
Old Timer



Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Karma :

PostPosted: 18:16 - 06 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rogerborg wrote:
Couldn't I assume something more realistic, like an attractive, man-friendly feminist?


Sorry edited while you replied.

You could always assume there were no benefits.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

arry
Super Spammer



Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Karma :

PostPosted: 20:59 - 06 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

sickpup wrote:

It should be pretty obvious, neither he nor his family receive benefits,


That depends on what you call a benefit. I would love a 20 minute commute into work, but even earning big money, I'm unlikely to ever be able to afford it.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

sickpup
Old Timer



Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Karma :

PostPosted: 21:10 - 06 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

arry wrote:
That depends on what you call a benefit. I would love a 20 minute commute into work, but even earning big money, I'm unlikely to ever be able to afford it.


Change job, move or deal with it. The same any one in LA housing has to do. They don't move you just because you have changed jobs.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

arry
Super Spammer



Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Karma :

PostPosted: 21:14 - 06 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

sickpup wrote:

Change job, move or deal with it. The same any one in LA housing has to do. They don't move you just because you have changed jobs.


Irrelevant. This isn't about me. My comparison is purely I can be DINK and can't logically afford what he's given as matter of course.

True or false. Without state intervention (changed the word to assist the point) MC wouldn't be able to afford the accommodation he has in the locale he lives in. True; or false?
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

M.C
Super Spammer



Joined: 29 Sep 2015
Karma :

PostPosted: 21:20 - 06 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

And I thought this tedious debate was over when MPD blicked me...

Rogerborg wrote:
How much do you imagine you'd pay to live in the style to which you have become (very, very) accustomed without the taxpayer supporting you? Thinking

You mean with the all alcoholism, drug abuse, violent crime, muggings, stabbings/shootings? Eh? #blessed

sickpup wrote:
M.C lives in a 2 floor 3 bedroom terrace house somewhere around North Tottenham/Bruce Grove type of area in Haringay.
These houses were built pre WW11 so probably cost less than £5000 to build. In the last year the rent has been in the region of £700 a month and has been for at least 3 years. So in the last 3 years the rent has been in the region of £25200.
The house will only have had the Kitchen, toilet and Bathroom replaced once in the last 25 years and that would probably have been in the last 6 years by Mears which had a budget somewhere in the region of £2500.
Assuming the house didn't require repairs and these types of houses rarely do that is a profit for the council of £22,700. Due to the type of house the Council tax will be the region of £130 a month and will come down to rubbish collections so again there will be a profit.

Its not but your points are valid, I've raised them myself.

arry wrote:
sickpup wrote:

But how are you supporting him?


By paying taxes for his subsidised living. Not sure where you're going with this.

If the answer is he could afford to live there without subsidy - then great, crack on.

If the answer is he couldn't but it woulda coulda shoulda cost a lot more in some other form of subsidy then that's a different question.

A relative lives in a housing association property in <central postcode> and pays a grand a month, which's pretty amazing for the area. They got it by being first to pickup the phone and claim no benefits. Is that subsidised?

Rogerborg wrote:
sickpup wrote:
It should be pretty obvious, neither he nor his family receive benefits

I'll check the personnel records, but wasn't he trigged by his mum's benefits being cut when they found out that she had an adult son Living At Home?

Let's wait for confirmation or refutation before deciding his fate.

Rolling Eyes I mentioned how under Labour the amount you paid if you were living at home (Wink) was frozen for something like 10 years, and the Tories put it up rapidly over 2 years. The important point which you've continually missed is that this is a national rate, so a lad in Newcastle pays the same... which makes absolutely no sense, and that it probably discourages youngins when they get their first job, and see they have to cover virtually all or the entire rent of their parent(s) property.

This was in the context of how Labour policies encourage people into work, and the Tories do the opposite. To personalise it (as you love doing), I've told you my mam's a pensioner, if I wasn't here you'd be covering all of the rent.

To show how BCF is a microcosim of... I'm not exactly sure what, most people when I tell them how much I pay think I'm being ripped off Laughing They all either have their own properties (housing association/council) and pay around the same, live with their parents and pay a lot less, or increasingly are in shared houses and guess what... again pay about the same.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

M.C
Super Spammer



Joined: 29 Sep 2015
Karma :

PostPosted: 21:22 - 06 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

arry wrote:
I would love a 20 minute commute into work, but even earning big money, I'm unlikely to ever be able to afford it.

Want to swap? We could film it and get on the telly Wub
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

arry
Super Spammer



Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Karma :

PostPosted: 21:27 - 06 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey I'm not criticising I'm just realistic. You haven't the buying power nor the type of income that would land you the position you have, regardless of how shit you might think it is, without it being at a rate that's massively reduced from open market. I've no problem with that - but it does have to be realised.

Assuming you're not claiming anything and you're paying something = nothing being subsidised isn't a great assumption. Regardless of how much of a shit hole you think it is, someone on open market would pay more than you do to live there. Cost of building a place a bit irrelevant when the land is worth 10x more than the structure.

I'm just realistic about it.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

M.C
Super Spammer



Joined: 29 Sep 2015
Karma :

PostPosted: 21:32 - 06 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

arry wrote:
Hey I'm not criticising I'm just realistic. You haven't the buying power nor the type of income that would land you the position you have, regardless of how shit you might think it is, without it being at a rate that's massively reduced from open market. I've no problem with that - but it does have to be realised.

Assuming you're not claiming anything and you're paying something = nothing being subsidised isn't a great assumption. Regardless of how much of a shit hole you think it is, someone on open market would pay more than you do to live there. Cost of building a place a bit irrelevant when the land is worth 10x more than the structure.

I'm just realistic about it.

That's the problem with this debate. 10 years ago rents were reasonable, 20 years ago house prices were reasonable. Should we ship the peasant folk off* every decade or so when house prices rise, then move them back in when they fall again?
I'm nursing my deposit waiting for the next crash BTW Wink Furthermore having this debate with people who benefited from much much lower house prices, or even got on the social housing ladder back when it was possible feels a bit... Neutral

*which's already happening
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

sickpup
Old Timer



Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Karma :

PostPosted: 21:34 - 06 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

arry wrote:
Assuming you're not claiming anything and you're paying something = nothing being subsidised isn't a great assumption. Regardless of how much of a shit hole you think it is, someone on open market would pay more than you do to live there. Cost of building a place a bit irrelevant when the land is worth 10x more than the structure.

I'm just realistic about it.


Yes you are being realistic I agree but you are also wrong. Just because selling a property has the potential for a short term gain doesn't mean that not selling it equals being subsidised. In fact in the case of it being retained and rented to a benefit claimer it is cheaper to retain and rent than it is to sell and rent while paying off the land lords Mortgage and cocaine habit or what ever as the money the council pays out in housing benefit/universal credit goes straight back into their own pocket.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

arry
Super Spammer



Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Karma :

PostPosted: 21:51 - 06 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

sickpup wrote:

Yes you are being realistic I agree but you are also wrong. Just because selling a property has the potential for a short term gain doesn't mean that not selling it equals being subsidised. In fact in the case of it being retained and rented to a benefit claimer it is cheaper to retain and rent than it is to sell and rent while paying off the land lords Mortgage and cocaine habit or what ever as the money the council pays out in housing benefit/universal credit goes straight back into their own pocket.


So it's cheaper for us tax payers that have never claimed a pony if there aren't people to subsidise?

But people that can't afford to live where they live aren't being subsidised?

Or is your point that some people are more worthy of subsidy than others but they're actually not being subsidised if you look at it through a non realistic lens?

Genuinely confused.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

sickpup
Old Timer



Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Karma :

PostPosted: 22:02 - 06 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

arry wrote:
So it's cheaper for us tax payers that have never claimed a pony if there aren't people to subsidise?

But people that can't afford to live where they live aren't being subsidised?

Or is your point that some people are more worthy of subsidy than others but they're actually not being subsidised if you look at it through a non realistic lens?

Genuinely confused.


You are genuinely confused because your mind refuses to accept one single simple solitary point which is odd as you play with numbers for a living. Just because someone lives in LA housing doesn't mean that housing is subsidised by the tax payer.

Further to the above point the LA has lower costs, has generally owned housing stock for decades so the cost is spread over decades and the finacial costs are spread over a large portfolio, not that much different from how Llloyds operates I imagine.

There is the further point that if an LA is housing people on benefits rather than a private land lord then the benefit payed out by the LA goes to the LA so can be reused. If it goes to a private landlord it is gone so can't be reused.

The big question is why do the people who bought their own houses resent those in LA housing when it costs less than private renting so keeps taxes down?
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

arry
Super Spammer



Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Karma :

PostPosted: 22:18 - 06 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

sickpup wrote:

You are genuinely confused because your mind refuses to accept one single simple solitary point which is odd as you play with numbers for a living.


Within my P&L line I have to pay for my office space and home office recharge and, as a result, my net profit falls because those things are set in stone and I can't escape paying them. If my business didn't cover its own costs I'd be shut down, but hey - imagine if I could just have someone pay them for me? I might be able to afford to trade out of London....

Quote:
Just because someone lives in LA housing doesn't mean that housing is subsidised by the tax payer.


At the risk of going round in circles - MC couldn't afford to live where he lives without 'subsidy'. You've not answered that question true / false but it is at least clear. At the risk of further going round in circles, it depends on what you call a 'benefit'. He can't afford to live there, but does. The shortfall is a subsidy. Isn't it? On what grounds is it not?

Quote:
Further to the above point the LA has lower costs, has generally owned housing stock for decades so the cost is spread over decades and the finacial costs are spread over a large portfolio, not that much different from how Llloyds operates I imagine.


Very different from how Lloyds operates. But let's just imagine a situation where people don't need to be subsidised with accommodation, the cost of which doesn't have to be spread across decades in order to make it seem half a reasonable shout.

Quote:
There is the further point that if an LA is housing people on benefits rather than a private land lord then the benefit payed out by the LA goes to the LA so can be reused. If it goes to a private landlord it is gone so can't be reused.


If we had to pay for no-one, everyone would pay for themselves. We're subsidising those that can't pay for themselves.

Quote:
The big question is why do the people who bought their own houses resent those in LA housing when it costs less than private renting so keeps taxes down?


Because it's still costing me, having never claimed a penny of any subsidy benefit or any other word for it, a lot of money to house / clothe / feed people that don't even acknowledge the concept.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

sickpup
Old Timer



Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Karma :

PostPosted: 22:45 - 06 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

arry wrote:
At the risk of going round in circles - MC couldn't afford to live where he lives without 'subsidy'. You've not answered that question true / false but it is at least clear. At the risk of further going round in circles, it depends on what you call a 'benefit'. He can't afford to live there, but does. The shortfall is a subsidy. Isn't it? On what grounds is it not?


This is the bit you realy really don't understand.

If MC isn't on benefits then there is no subsidy, none at all. Just because a private landlord charges more doesn't make the rent charged by an LA subsidised, it just means the private landlord is charging more to cover their increased cost or want for more profit. I don't understand why you are having such a problem understanding this except for your refusal to accept that an LA tenancy isn't by definition subsidised?

If MC doesn't claim a benefit then he is paying the rent which covers the cost of everything involved with the property, you pay nothing.

As to the 'benefit' of living closer to work that assumes that the tenant actually lives close to their work.

arry wrote:
Because it's still costing me, having never claimed a penny of any subsidy benefit or any other word for it, a lot of money to house / clothe / feed people that don't even acknowledge the concept.


If someone in an LA house is able to pay their rent without subsidy it costs you nothing. In fact it saves you money. Stop Assuming every one in LA housing is on benefits.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

arry
Super Spammer



Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Karma :

PostPosted: 06:59 - 07 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

Freedom isn't free; it costs folk like you and me (a buck o five).

Firstly, I feel more than a bit bad this has ended up all about MC - sorry fella, no hard feelings; I'm not trying to argue the rights or wrongs of it, just the reality of the costings.


sickpup wrote:

This is the bit you realy really don't understand.

If MC isn't on benefits then there is no subsidy, none at all. Just because a private landlord charges more doesn't make the rent charged by an LA subsidised, it just means the private landlord is charging more to cover their increased cost or want for more profit. I don't understand why you are having such a problem understanding this except for your refusal to accept that an LA tenancy isn't by definition subsidised?


That's a simplistic, one lens approach to it though, isn't it.

At the risk of going circular again - MC can't afford to live where he lives without the LA housing he enjoys as a benefit.

By definition - pohtayto, potarto. Back to the key fact, without assistance, he couldn't be there. He benefits from the provision of LA housing. He is receiving a benefit. The cost of a London postcode has been subsidised for him.

What you're saying, I believe, is that his LA housing doesn't directly cost anything. And at the front end, I suppose you could be correct; but the number at the bottom right of the balance sheet on the entire P&L is where you need to focus your attention.

Quote:
If MC doesn't claim a benefit then he is paying the rent which covers the cost of everything involved with the property, you pay nothing.


I'm always paying something, from somewhere.

Daddy is a property owner and has gimmedats sorry Daughters. He owns his house and has 2 flats. His flats rent for £1000 a month and have been paid for years ago. Daughter one comes of age and says But Daaaad I've not got enough money for a place of my own. Dad lets daughter one live in one of his flats for £500 a month. Hey, he's not paying for his daughter to live there, so it isn't subsidised, right?

Daughter two comes of age and says same thing. Dad gives daughter two the other flat at £500 a month. He's now a grand down on earnings every month, but it's not costing him anything.

Daughter three comes of age and says 'I demand a flat from you at cheaps because it is my birthright'. Daddy has to buy a flat, on a mortgage, in order to give daughter three her fair gibs. This costs him £450 a month, but she's going to pay £500 a month, so therefore it's not really costing him anything, is it?

Well, it is when he's got a mortgage on his house to pay, and the £950 he's down every month is what was paying that mortgage. It's drained his resources and now he has to borrow. He's in debt; the compound interest is mounting.

But none of the girls have directly taken anything from him? How can this be? But they couldn't afford to pay the £1000 each required to live there...

sickpup wrote:

If someone in an LA house is able to pay their rent without subsidy it costs you nothing. In fact it saves you money. Stop Assuming every one in LA housing is on benefits.


It always has an associated cost. Always. Living where you couldn't afford without assistance is always a benefit to the person living there.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Itchy
Super Spammer



Joined: 07 Apr 2005
Karma :

PostPosted: 08:16 - 07 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

arry wrote:
It always has an associated cost. Always. Living where you couldn't afford without assistance is always a benefit to the person living there.



Hong Kong has 51% of the population living in council houses
Singapore has 81%. Both of the cities public housing is rent controlled.

Yet these are the most hyper capitalistic societies on earth what gives?

The lower cost of living means that people don't need as much in way of wages. This reduces the cost of stuff in shops. This reduces the cost of living.

So people have more money to spend AND public sector workers wages are lower... meaning taxes don't have to be as high to pay their wages which lowers the cost of living again.

All this saved money can be used to invest in stuff.

This is why they are the most competitive nation states.


With MC what you're saying is he would be paying more if it wasn't LA. Except if he was in private accommodation he would pay more right? This is because a private landlord will add a profit motive right? So what you're describing is the inverse of the Singapore/HK situation.



Now then tie this in with why people don't want to pick fruit or do low pay jobs. It's not that they are lazy it is because the maths doesn't add up. Because of the high cost of living fruit picking will not cover their costs so they don't do it. This means somebody else has to do them and we get the Easter Europeans and the can of worms associated with them.
____________________
Spain 2008France 2007Big one 2009 We all die. The goal isn't to live forever, the goal is to create something that will. In the end, your life will flash before your eyes. Make sure it is worth watching.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Rogerborg
nimbA



Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Karma :

PostPosted: 08:48 - 07 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

M.C wrote:
You mean with the all alcoholism, drug abuse, violent crime, muggings, stabbings/shootings? Eh? #blessed

That's unusual in a community where everyone is paying their own way and not on benefits. Eh?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your situation isn't that you're being made to pay rent to the council or to your mum, but simply that they're giving her less free money to the extent of the amount that they think you should be contributing.


On whether it's subsidy or not.

Councils could sell all their stock, built with taxpayers' money, on the open market. The current inhabitants could buy the homes that they're living in at market prices, or be thrown out on the street[*]. The money raised could be used to cut taxes for their taxpayers.

Anything short of that is subsidising M.Cs at the cost of taxpayers.


[*] Where would they go? Wherever the people buying their housing are coming from. There will be no more or less housing available, or more or fewer people scrabbling after it.
____________________
Biking is 1/20th as dangerous as horse riding.
GONE: HN125-8, LF-250B, GPz 305, GPZ 500S, Burgman 400 // RIDING: F650GS (800 twin), Royal Enfield Bullet Electra 500 AVL, Ninja 250R because racebike
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

sickpup
Old Timer



Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Karma :

PostPosted: 09:45 - 07 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rogerborg wrote:
On whether it's subsidy or not.

Councils could sell all their stock, built with taxpayers' money, on the open market. The current inhabitants could buy the homes that they're living in at market prices, or be thrown out on the street[*]. The money raised could be used to cut taxes for their taxpayers.

Anything short of that is subsidising M.Cs at the cost of taxpayers.


Except it isn't and you know it isn't, what you are doing is preaching to the mob and you know it Thumbs Up

Sell off all the housing stock and put it into private hands will drive prices up and icrease the housing benefit budget to the point that people cannot afford to rent at which point mortgages won't be paid and many will default which if the past is to go by will mean a Government rescue which costs the tax payer billions.

It will also drive house prices up through the roof leading to a bubble. People will borrow on that bubble and when it collapses there will again be a mess.

Councils would not only be paying out on a higher housing benefit budget they would lose their main form of income and profit and so tax would have to rise to replace it.

Rogerborg wrote:
[*] Where would they go? Wherever the people buying their housing are coming from. There will be no more or less housing available, or more or fewer people scrabbling after it.


Potentially moving people away from jobs to places where they will be on benefits costing the tax payer more in unemployment and other benefits.

Nice to see that you thought that one through Roger

Arry

Still wrong and failing to understand.

You have placed the private rent as the baseline for all other rents and therefore anything lower than a private rent MUST be subsidised. The reality if you go back a decade or two was the other way around, the LA rent was the standard and private rents matched them.

This is in essence no different to two insurance companies quoting on a Deauville which I did yesterday and one quoting £400ish and one quoting £600ish. Same service but one is cheaper for whatever reason, it doesn't make it subsidised.

You are so convinced that LA housing must be subsidised that you are basing all of your arguments around it while failing to explain how its subsidised other than to say the tenant couldn't afford inflated private rents and failing to note its an inflated rent they can't afford.

I agree it is a circular argument because you cannot accept that a tenant paying full rent to an LA is not subsidised and nothing will change your mind on this matter.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Rogerborg
nimbA



Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Karma :

PostPosted: 10:13 - 07 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

sickpup wrote:
Sell off all the housing stock and put it into private hands will drive prices up

Flooding the private market with new properties for sale will cause house prices to rise?

I... am lost for words.


sickpup wrote:
Potentially moving people away from jobs

I guess there's always a potential for that.
____________________
Biking is 1/20th as dangerous as horse riding.
GONE: HN125-8, LF-250B, GPz 305, GPZ 500S, Burgman 400 // RIDING: F650GS (800 twin), Royal Enfield Bullet Electra 500 AVL, Ninja 250R because racebike
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

sickpup
Old Timer



Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Karma :

PostPosted: 10:24 - 07 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rogerborg wrote:
I... am lost for words.


Can't see the bit where I say flood the market so I guess I didn't say it you did.

Are you suggesting flooding the market, depressing prices so properties are sold off below market price destroying private house prices and rents potentially causing bankruptcy and economy collapse?

Rogerborg wrote:
I guess there's always a potential for that.


And here we get to the root of the problem. You are utterly convinced that anyone in LA housing must be a benefit scrounger.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Rogerborg
nimbA



Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Karma :

PostPosted: 10:49 - 07 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

sickpup wrote:
Rogerborg wrote:
I... am lost for words.

Can't see the bit where I say flood the market so I guess I didn't say it you did.

Can't see the bit where I quoted you as having said it, because you didn't say it, I did.


sickpup wrote:
Are you suggesting flooding the market

Well, now you said it. It's good that we agree though.


sickpup wrote:
depressing prices so properties are sold off below market price

All properties in the private marked sell at market prices. It's axiomatic.


sickpup wrote:
destroying private house prices

Correcting them.


sickpup wrote:
and rents potentially causing bankruptcy and economy collapse?

Winners and losers are inherent to a free market. I'd rather that it were on merit than those who win the socialist housing lottery.


Rogerborg wrote:
And here we get to the root of the problem. You are utterly convinced that anyone in LA housing must be a benefit scrounger.

I assume it as a working default, if we count all benefits including housing, tax credits, disability, and Living At Home.

Generalisations don't have to be utterly accurate to be useful.
____________________
Biking is 1/20th as dangerous as horse riding.
GONE: HN125-8, LF-250B, GPz 305, GPZ 500S, Burgman 400 // RIDING: F650GS (800 twin), Royal Enfield Bullet Electra 500 AVL, Ninja 250R because racebike
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

sickpup
Old Timer



Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Karma :

PostPosted: 10:56 - 07 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rogerborg wrote:
Generalisations don't have to be utterly accurate to be useful.


No they don't unless you are using them to prove you're right and then yes they need to be accurate.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Rogerborg
nimbA



Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Karma :

PostPosted: 11:00 - 07 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

sickpup wrote:
Rogerborg wrote:
Generalisations don't have to be utterly accurate to be useful.

No they don't unless you are using them to prove you're right and then yes they need to be accurate.

Oh, then it is accurate.

Case closed.
____________________
Biking is 1/20th as dangerous as horse riding.
GONE: HN125-8, LF-250B, GPz 305, GPZ 500S, Burgman 400 // RIDING: F650GS (800 twin), Royal Enfield Bullet Electra 500 AVL, Ninja 250R because racebike
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts
Old Thread Alert!

The last post was made 5 years, 296 days ago. Instead of replying here, would creating a new thread be more useful?
  Display posts from previous:   
This page may contain affiliate links, which means we may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. By clicking on an affiliate link, you accept that third-party cookies will be set.

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Bike Chat Forums Index -> Politics & Current Affairs All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 31, 32, 33 ... 35, 36, 37  Next
Page 32 of 37

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

Read the Terms of Use! - Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
 

Debug Mode: ON - Server: birks (www) - Page Generation Time: 0.17 Sec - Server Load: 0.55 - MySQL Queries: 17 - Page Size: 165.17 Kb