|
Author |
Message |
Rogerborg |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Rogerborg nimbA
Joined: 26 Oct 2010 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
sickpup |
This post is not being displayed .
|
sickpup Old Timer
Joined: 21 Apr 2004 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
Rogerborg |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Rogerborg nimbA
Joined: 26 Oct 2010 Karma :
|
Posted: 18:15 - 06 Jun 2018 Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
sickpup |
This post is not being displayed .
|
sickpup Old Timer
Joined: 21 Apr 2004 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
arry |
This post is not being displayed .
|
arry Super Spammer
Joined: 03 Jan 2009 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
sickpup |
This post is not being displayed .
|
sickpup Old Timer
Joined: 21 Apr 2004 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
arry |
This post is not being displayed .
|
arry Super Spammer
Joined: 03 Jan 2009 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
M.C |
This post is not being displayed .
|
M.C Super Spammer
Joined: 29 Sep 2015 Karma :
|
Posted: 21:20 - 06 Jun 2018 Post subject: |
|
|
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? |
You mean with the all alcoholism, drug abuse, violent crime, muggings, stabbings/shootings? #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. |
I mentioned how under Labour the amount you paid if you were living at home () 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 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 |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
M.C |
This post is not being displayed .
|
M.C Super Spammer
Joined: 29 Sep 2015 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
arry |
This post is not being displayed .
|
arry Super Spammer
Joined: 03 Jan 2009 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
M.C |
This post is not being displayed .
|
M.C Super Spammer
Joined: 29 Sep 2015 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
sickpup |
This post is not being displayed .
|
sickpup Old Timer
Joined: 21 Apr 2004 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
arry |
This post is not being displayed .
|
arry Super Spammer
Joined: 03 Jan 2009 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
sickpup |
This post is not being displayed .
|
sickpup Old Timer
Joined: 21 Apr 2004 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
arry |
This post is not being displayed .
|
arry Super Spammer
Joined: 03 Jan 2009 Karma :
|
Posted: 22:18 - 06 Jun 2018 Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
sickpup |
This post is not being displayed .
|
sickpup Old Timer
Joined: 21 Apr 2004 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
arry |
This post is not being displayed .
|
arry Super Spammer
Joined: 03 Jan 2009 Karma :
|
Posted: 06:59 - 07 Jun 2018 Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
Itchy |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Itchy Super Spammer
Joined: 07 Apr 2005 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
Rogerborg |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Rogerborg nimbA
Joined: 26 Oct 2010 Karma :
|
Posted: 08:48 - 07 Jun 2018 Post subject: |
|
|
M.C wrote: | You mean with the all alcoholism, drug abuse, violent crime, muggings, stabbings/shootings? #blessed |
That's unusual in a community where everyone is paying their own way and not on benefits.
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 |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
sickpup |
This post is not being displayed .
|
sickpup Old Timer
Joined: 21 Apr 2004 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
Rogerborg |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Rogerborg nimbA
Joined: 26 Oct 2010 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
sickpup |
This post is not being displayed .
|
sickpup Old Timer
Joined: 21 Apr 2004 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
Rogerborg |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Rogerborg nimbA
Joined: 26 Oct 2010 Karma :
|
Posted: 10:49 - 07 Jun 2018 Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
sickpup |
This post is not being displayed .
|
sickpup Old Timer
Joined: 21 Apr 2004 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
Rogerborg |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Rogerborg nimbA
Joined: 26 Oct 2010 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
Old Thread Alert!
The last post was made 5 years, 322 days ago. Instead of replying here, would creating a new thread be more useful? |
|
|
|