Guest Foxin_mad Posted 2 May 2018 Posted 2 May 2018 16 minutes ago, toddybad said: It's why the policy of a huge council housing programme is the only answer I can see to the crisis. A huge house building program of some kind. Incentives to build on brownfield sites and some decent social housing is needed definitely. We need a good mixture of housing stock. Builders should also be forced to contribute to building extra hospitals and schools in areas where infrastructure is already stretched. The builders can afford that, they have been milking help to buy to maximise profits for a few years now selling £200000 houses for £250000.
Guest Posted 2 May 2018 Posted 2 May 2018 3 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: They should have paid whatever the fair wage was at the time instead of taxing and handing out a bizarre benefit. Its like taking with one hand and giving back with the other, it s a costly bureaucratic mess. I am happy for a fair discussion on what a living wage actually is. The result might be that some people get a living wage, others lose there job. I would say that is pretty much a given. Of course again I would argue a higher wage isn't the solution here, making somethings cheaper is, particularly housing is. House prices rose over 300% in some areas between 97-2010. There was no coherent building plan during those years and 10 million new people entering the country. What exactly did we think the impact would be? As much as you might want to make it party political house prices also rose significantly between 1979 and 1997. Taking the entire housing stock and selling it without putting any off the money into a building programme. What did Maggie think would happen? Neither party is blameless. Baby boomers buying up 2, 3, 4 houses - what did they think would happen? Councils giving planning permission for endless flats and hardly any houses - what did they think would happen? Allowing constructing companies to sit on land and running watch the land price rise - what did the government think would happen? So the only option I can see is the labour answer - mass council house building. Worked for the country before, can work again.
Guest Posted 2 May 2018 Posted 2 May 2018 11 minutes ago, Bobby Hundreds said: God forbid someone prices that up as a single parent Yeah. And if you're a make single parent you have to find maintenance. If you're a graduate too, student loan repayments.
Guest Posted 2 May 2018 Posted 2 May 2018 2 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: A huge house building program of some kind. Incentives to build on brownfield sites and some decent social housing is needed definitely. We need a good mixture of housing stock. Builders should also be forced to contribute to building extra hospitals and schools in areas where infrastructure is already stretched. The builders can afford that, they have been milking help to buy to maximise profits for a few years now selling £200000 houses for £250000. So you're possibly closer to labour than three Tories on this given they're don't practically nothing.
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 2 May 2018 Posted 2 May 2018 Just now, toddybad said: As much as you might want to make it party political house prices also rose significantly between 1979 and 1997. Taking the entire housing stock and selling it without putting any off the money into a building programme. What did Maggie think would happen? Neither party is blameless. Baby boomers buying up 2, 3, 4 houses - what did they think would happen? Councils giving planning permission for endless flats and hardly any houses - what did they think would happen? Allowing constructing companies to sit on land and running watch the land price rise - what did the government think would happen? So the only option I can see is the labour answer - mass council house building. Worked for the country before, can work again. Maggie did make mistakes. Right to buy was a nice idea. I remember my granddad thinking it was the only decent thing Maggie did. But I agree something should have been done to replenish stock. I think the increase between 97 and 2010 was one of the most significant in history but there have been failings over 40 years or more. Does everyone want to live in sprawling council estates though? It worked in the past as times were different. I am sure there is reasonably low cost housing available on council estates today for rent, do people want to live there? I don't know? Some social housing is defiantly necessary. I think the idea to allocate a number of social houses on a new development is a good idea maybe increase that. In some ways its also good to have social housing amongst, private housing. Unless of course you end up living next to a idiot.
Guest Posted 2 May 2018 Posted 2 May 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: Maggie did make mistakes. Right to buy was a nice idea. I remember my granddad thinking it was the only decent thing Maggie did. But I agree something should have been done to replenish stock. I think the increase between 97 and 2010 was one of the most significant in history but there have been failings over 40 years or more. Does everyone want to live in sprawling council estates though? It worked in the past as times were different. I am sure there is reasonably low cost housing available on council estates today for rent, do people want to live there? I don't know? Some social housing is defiantly necessary. I think the idea to allocate a number of social houses on a new development is a good idea maybe increase that. In some ways its also good to have social housing amongst, private housing. Unless of course you end up living next to a idiot. Trouble is house building currently is only half of what we need just to deal with annual growth in the market (I.e new would be buyers) It doesn't touch the backlog of potential buyers. It's why I can't see the private sector being able to do anywhere near enough. Just because outs council housing doesn't mean it can't be made more attractive now. It doesn't have to be like the old estates. If they mix up renting/ selling it and use revenues to fund further building it could become self sustaining. Imagine the numbers of people that would be employed too. Edited 2 May 2018 by Guest
Buce Posted 2 May 2018 Posted 2 May 2018 38 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: Depends where they are renting? Where my business is housing is considerably cheaper than many areas granted. They don't need car finance. I have ran a second hard few hundred quid car for next to nothing for years, I am willing to offer them advice on living frugally. Its again a strange belief that we 'need' a brand new car and phone to 'live'. Stay on top of the food and utilities bills I would say too, if its cold put a jumper on. Turn the thermos down a few degrees, make sure lights are off if your not in a room. They work hard, we do well they get a good bonus. For example this year every employee received over 1k in April. 5 Could you be any more patronising? Your workforce must despise you. 1
Bobby Hundreds Posted 2 May 2018 Posted 2 May 2018 There's a 2 bedroom house in New Parks currently renting for £500pcm with a deposit of £750 (apologies to any New Parkies).
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 2 May 2018 Posted 2 May 2018 4 minutes ago, toddybad said: So you're possibly closer to labour than three Tories on this given they're don't practically nothing. To some extents yes. There is house building going on at present, the highest level for about 15 years I think. I agree it is still not enough. I cant quite fathom how the construction sector isn't booming given our need for housing stock. There are also questions to be asked of some councils, re empty property etc. Terrace Streets compulsory purchased under Pathfinder (yuk) left empty in Midlands, North. Some areas of the country are cheaper or have more empty housing stock, can we encourage relocation of jobs and workers to these areas? There are options. I don't think any party really has a fully coherent plan. I agree with the need to build more, I am not sure they all need to be council houses and or publically/funded.
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 2 May 2018 Posted 2 May 2018 3 minutes ago, Buce said: Could you be any more patronising? Your workforce must despise you. Actually no they don't. They just got over 1k each not much to hate about that I am sure. Every month we exceed budget is a good month for me and a good month for them. its pretty basic. I am not going to pay for someone to have their boiler on all day though.
Bobby Hundreds Posted 2 May 2018 Posted 2 May 2018 Just now, Foxin_mad said: Actually no they don't. They just got over 1k each not much to hate about that I am sure. Every month we exceed budget is a good month for me and a good month for them. its pretty basic. I am not going to pay for someone to have their boiler on all day though. I priced it on the lowest tariff with economy 7, unless we're talking cold showers with clothes on?
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 2 May 2018 Posted 2 May 2018 5 minutes ago, toddybad said: Trouble is house building currently is only half of what we need just to deal with annual growth in the market (I.e new would be buyers) It doesn't touch the backlog of potential buyers. It's why I can't see the private sector being able to do anywhere near enough. Just because outs council housing doesn't mean it can't be made more attractive now. It doesn't have to be like the old estates. If they mix up renting/ selling it and use revenues to fund further building it could become self sustaining. Imagine the numbers of people that would be employed too. I can see your point here re quantity. I suppose we need to see a full proposal but it absolutely needs to include local infrastructure. Shops/Schools/Hospitals/Road upgrades. Not many of these new developments cater for that.
Buce Posted 2 May 2018 Posted 2 May 2018 3 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: Actually no they don't. They just got over 1k each not much to hate about that I am sure. Every month we exceed budget is a good month for me and a good month for them. its pretty basic. I am not going to pay for someone to have their boiler on all day though. 1 Are you for real? You're a fvcking control freak.
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 2 May 2018 Posted 2 May 2018 1 minute ago, Bobby Hundreds said: I priced it on the lowest tariff with economy 7, unless we're talking cold showers with clothes on? £150 a month quoted I think? I am paying £75 dual fuel for a 4 bed detached. Surely that Boiler is faulty! I am not exactly careful with the heating side.
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 2 May 2018 Posted 2 May 2018 1 minute ago, Buce said: Are you for real? You're a fvcking control freak. Why the fvck is it a 'living wage' if somebody decides they want to leave all the lights on and burn fossil fuels? If they want to work overtime and do that fine, they want to use their bonus and do that fine. But it is not a basic living right. If you are telling me people cant have a decent house, cant eat, cant heat themselves, cant watch TV, cant go on the internet, cant afford the occasional meal out and/or beer then fine. But I am not seeing that.
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 2 May 2018 Posted 2 May 2018 2 minutes ago, Bobby Hundreds said: Broadband and water too lad. Fair enough. My Broadband £9.99 a month and water depends on meter.
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 2 May 2018 Posted 2 May 2018 21 hours ago, MattP said: I remember that witch telling me the stars were aligned for me to win the lottery. Bastard. Seriously though, if you want to accuse people of being political extremists at least spell their names right. Why would anyone trust the opinion of someone who can't even do that. Same old Matt.
Sharpe's Fox Posted 2 May 2018 Posted 2 May 2018 (edited) What the hell happened on this thread today? Don’t you people work? Edited 2 May 2018 by Sharpe's Fox
Rogstanley Posted 2 May 2018 Posted 2 May 2018 1 hour ago, Strokes said: I sold my house recently and I’ve just signed a contract on a 3 bed south leicester for £700 a month. I assume it goes down significantly if you lose space but I wouldn’t claim to be knowledgeable no. Why did you sell your house to rent? Just out of interest, feel free to tell me it's none of my business
Strokes Posted 2 May 2018 Posted 2 May 2018 3 minutes ago, Rogstanley said: Why did you sell your house to rent? Just out of interest, feel free to tell me it's none of my business It sold in the first day (to first time buyers) and for 10k over what we wanted, we hadn’t even looked for houses and were only briefly speaking to a mortgage advisor. We felt a bit pressured to make a decision because the buyers are keen for it to go through quickly, so it made more sense to rent and wait for a nice house, and the kids will stay in the same school until the summer holidays so it’s less disruptive. 1
Guest Kopfkino Posted 2 May 2018 Posted 2 May 2018 2 hours ago, Strokes said: I sold my house recently and I’ve just signed a contract on a 3 bed south leicester for £700 a month. I assume it goes down significantly if you lose space but I wouldn’t claim to be knowledgeable no. Ffs I pay 750 for a room
Strokes Posted 2 May 2018 Posted 2 May 2018 Just now, Kopfkino said: Ffs I pay 750 for a room I bet it’s a lovely room though
Rogstanley Posted 2 May 2018 Posted 2 May 2018 (edited) My take on the minimum wage is that it ought to allow a single person working full time to live independently to a safe and healthy standard. I reckon reasonable monthly costs to afford such a lifestyle are as follows: Rent £550* Transport £200* Council tax £100 Water, gas & electricity £100 Broadband £25 Phone £15 Food £150 Clothes/Toiletries £50 Social £50 Rainy day fund £50 Total: £1,290/month Requires a salary of £18,200 or £8.75/hr. This is all outside London and the south east obviously. *on the basis that most people work in cities, and rent is more expensive in cities, I think the more you spend on rent (ie on a property closer to work) the less you'll spend on transport and vice versa, so you can juggle those two numbers around but I think £750 combined is about right Edited 2 May 2018 by Rogstanley
Recommended Posts