Home Menu

Site Navigation


Notices

Serious Debates & News Debate and discussion about political, moral, philosophical, celebrity and news topics.

Register to reply Log in to reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 05-01-2014, 04:09 PM #1
Livia's Avatar
Livia Livia is offline
Flag shagger.
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Brasov, Transylvania
Posts: 34,820


Livia Livia is offline
Flag shagger.
Livia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Brasov, Transylvania
Posts: 34,820


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherie View Post
Didn't all this start with allowing people to buy their Council Houses on the cheap, but not replacing those that were bought with new stock? I don't know why a private landlord has to be castigated for taking advantage of a situation that was brought about by successive governments.
Yes, the reason we're short of social housing is that the Tories brought in the right to buy scheme. That doesn't mean that private landlords should be applauded for being opportunists and profiteers.
Livia is offline  
Old 05-01-2014, 04:13 PM #2
Cherie's Avatar
Cherie Cherie is offline
This Witch doesn't burn
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 68,039

Favourites (more):
Strictly 2020: Bill Bailey
BB19: Sian


Cherie Cherie is offline
This Witch doesn't burn
Cherie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 68,039

Favourites (more):
Strictly 2020: Bill Bailey
BB19: Sian


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Livia View Post
Yes, the reason we're short of social housing is that the Tories brought in the right to buy scheme. That doesn't mean that private landlords should be applauded for being opportunists and profiteers.



What? Why not? aren't most people who have successful businesses opportunists, they see a gap in the market and they cash in? Most private landlords have mortgages to pay, they rely on their tenants to pay the rent, simple economics, it doesn't matter if you have 1 property or 1,000 the economics remain the same.
__________________
'put a bit of lippy on and run a brush through your hair, we are alcoholics, not savages'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beso
Livelier than Izaaz, and hes got 2 feet.
Cherie is offline  
Old 05-01-2014, 07:06 PM #3
Livia's Avatar
Livia Livia is offline
Flag shagger.
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Brasov, Transylvania
Posts: 34,820


Livia Livia is offline
Flag shagger.
Livia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Brasov, Transylvania
Posts: 34,820


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherie View Post
[/B]

What? Why not? aren't most people who have successful businesses opportunists, they see a gap in the market and they cash in? Most private landlords have mortgages to pay, they rely on their tenants to pay the rent, simple economics, it doesn't matter if you have 1 property or 1,000 the economics remain the same.

Hey, if you're okay with this, that's your decision. Personally, I think kicking out people who are on benefits and taking in people who aren't is unscrupulous in the extreme. The only answer to this profiteering and opportunism is to build more social housing. But you argued with that too... so I think you're just looking to argue.
Livia is offline  
Old 05-01-2014, 07:57 PM #4
Cherie's Avatar
Cherie Cherie is offline
This Witch doesn't burn
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 68,039

Favourites (more):
Strictly 2020: Bill Bailey
BB19: Sian


Cherie Cherie is offline
This Witch doesn't burn
Cherie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 68,039

Favourites (more):
Strictly 2020: Bill Bailey
BB19: Sian


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Livia View Post
Hey, if you're okay with this, that's your decision. Personally, I think kicking out people who are on benefits and taking in people who aren't is unscrupulous in the extreme. The only answer to this profiteering and opportunism is to build more social housing. But you argued with that too... so I think you're just looking to argue.




Excuse me, i guess if you were answering anyone else it would be a debate, but that's more your problem than mine, and where did I argue that I was against more social housing?

This unscrupulous landlord has 1,000 properties, he wont be managing these on his own, he will be employing trademen, a solicitor, an accountant, cleaners, a mortgage broker, he will be paying buildings insurance so his enterprise is keeping alot of people in work, he will have paid thousands in stamp duty, VAT, and tax thereby helping to pay for people on benefits. If these people who have already been paid their rent by the Council have spent it elsewhere, why should he pick up the tab?
__________________
'put a bit of lippy on and run a brush through your hair, we are alcoholics, not savages'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beso
Livelier than Izaaz, and hes got 2 feet.

Last edited by Cherie; 05-01-2014 at 08:09 PM.
Cherie is offline  
Old 05-01-2014, 09:00 PM #5
the truth the truth is offline
User banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,477
the truth the truth is offline
User banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Livia View Post
Hey, if you're okay with this, that's your decision. Personally, I think kicking out people who are on benefits and taking in people who aren't is unscrupulous in the extreme. The only answer to this profiteering and opportunism is to build more social housing. But you argued with that too... so I think you're just looking to argue.
its not. simply because the government have foolishly decided to pay the rent money to the tennants. in many cases the tennants are keeping this money and not handing it over to the landlords. theres a story here where one man owns 800 houses and is having delays with over 300 payments a week. thats over £30,000 a week. additionally the tennants refuse to speak to him as their debt builds and they refuse to tell him of any problems or damage at the properties. so the landlord gets into problems as does the house. In 1 story the tennant takes the monies to pay for his drugs. he fails to tell the owner of damage at the property, the house leaks and the ceiling collapses, the tennant then has the cheek to report the house to the council who issue an improvement order on the house costing £400 plus over £10,000 in damage needed to be fixed in order to make the house liveable and rentable again

this system is insane

it also adds massively to the workload on the council staff for no reason

housing benefit should go straight to landlords
the truth is offline  
Register to reply Log in to reply

Bookmark/share this topic

Tags
benefit, buytolet, door, housing, property, shuts, supremo, tenants


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:40 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
 

About Us ThisisBigBrother.com

"Big Brother and UK Television Forum. Est. 2001"

 

© 2023
no new posts