Housing Benefit ending for Canal License.

[Richard10002]

9 hours ago, Wanted said:

Only when folk realise that the neoliberalist wet dream will devour everything in it's path, that individuals capitalising on the basic needs of others is wrong and that profit above humanity is in direct contradiction to natural evolution will we begin to live in a society that we can all enjoy. 

 

The arrogance of those who believe we as a human race achieved all that we have in our time by working in competition with each other is staggering. We are sold the myth that our aspirations end at homeownership, however, a 3rd of our MP's are buy to let landlords literally blocking the so-called aspiration that their backwards political theology preaches. 

 

I'd like to think that we are closer to a revolution than we have ever been in recent years, a revolution that I hope sees homes are taken and workers rising up. If that all sounds a bit far fetched, ask yourselves how the hell did that clown in America become president, it was a direct result of neoliberalism, the losers in this capitalist game become politically disenfranchised and inevitably get swept up in this populist brand of fascism that has reared its head. 

 

What has that got to do with buy to let? essentially it's a transference of wealth, from poor to rich and as soon as folk can't afford the socks that they are told to continually pull up, they will turn, and as Marx said,  'The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains'

 

 

   

Are you saying that landlords should let people live in their properties for free. They will all obviously give up being landlords and all of those people who can’t buy a home will be homeless. If that is your goal, good luck with it.

 

i agree that, if the market is flooded with property for sale because landlords can no longer keep them, prices will fall... possibly dramatically. However, many will not be able to buy a house, no matter how cheap, so they will be homeless.

 

Thus, fundamentally, your goal is to see all of the poor and vulnerable on the streets.

 

Good luck with what you wish for

 

[Richard10002]

3 hours ago, Wanted said:

Incidentally,  I am putting my money where my mouth is and am currently triple bottom line accounting for the community interest company

 

We, as a registered company are prepared to go bust if we do not meet either our financial or ethical targets and consider them to be of equal importance.    

And going bust would continue to help the community interest.... how???

 

I agree with your ethics and stuff, but if you are happy to cease to exist ..........

[Athy]

57 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

 

This 'traditionally seen' actually started in the early 1970's when house prices first started rocketting and gazumping became a national pastime. Between 1955 and 1969 when my parents paid off their mortgage, the price of their house had barely increased, merely kept pace with inflation. From the 1970's housing became an investment vehicle to make money for those who already had wealth.

Perhaps if they are willing to play the long game, yes, but the rise has been far from constant or inexorable: remember neg. eq. in the mid-noughties?

Edited August 23, 2018 by Athy

[Richard10002]

2 hours ago, Gareth E said:

When the revolution comes, I wonder if you feel that you and your family are exempt from having your house taken over by the workers?

and.... once taken over by the “workers”, (whoever they are), the workers become the property owning capitalist scum.... and so it goes on

[Wanted]

2 hours ago, Athy said:

It doesn't sound as if Foxy and Moggy are!

plenty more where they come from..

1 hour ago, Gareth E said:

Well that's fine then. I'm wondering though, whether you'd see a risk to the security of your family as an acceptable risk, in order for the changes you seek to go ahead?

 

 

I consider my family to be more at risk under the current regime, its a question of balance

53 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

Are you saying that landlords should let people live in their properties for free. They will all obviously give up being landlords and all of those people who can’t buy a home will be homeless. If that is your goal, good luck with it.

 

 

Thus, fundamentally, your goal is to see all of the poor and vulnerable on the streets.

 

 

 

I am saying that the ownership of property is the problem, there wouldn't be landlords. nobody would be on the streets 

[Wanted]

30 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

And going bust would continue to help the community interest.... how???

 

I agree with your ethics and stuff, but if you are happy to cease to exist ..........

I can't run a company that only considers it's finance, the finance is a third of our consideration, we could be making millions, but if we caused untold damage to the environment and shat on the people around us then how rich would we really be.

 

I can't help but feel that if you agree with the ethics yet don't live by them then you are acting disingenuously. How does that make you feel?

 

Most counter argument to mine at the moment seems to be trying to shoehorn the ideas I have presented into what we already know, it wont work, we need wholesale change, and the only way I see that coming anywhere near that is to push for a complete change in how we count our wealth.

[nicknorman]

2 hours ago, Wanted said:

 I only ever work for non profit organisations. I’m proud of being working class. 

 

 

Ah so you are in the same group as all those Civil Servants / Whitehall mandarins / members of the government and opposition. When are you getting your knighthood?

[Cheese]

13 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

It is not in the interest of the major house-builders to build enough homes for people to live in since that would cause a fall in the obscene price of housing, so they deliberately keep the housing market 'lean'.

If is the case there should be plenty of opportunity for small builders, and others, to build houses and make excessive profits..., which I don't see is happening.

13 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

When you talk of 60 years ago, people renting then were doing so for decades (anecdotal, referencing several in my immediate family) whereas these days, as an example, my daughter has been moved on numerous times by landlords, despite dependable payment of rent, taking due care of the property and generally being a good tenant.

I agree with you on this.  It ought to be in both tenants' and landlords' interests to have longer term tenancies available - where wanted - subject to both parties playing fair (paying rent on time & not wrecking the place;  and repairing the fabric and updating fixtures / fittings when needed).  Logically rents for such tenancies would be slightly lower, as landlords wouldn't have to worry about void periods, but they probably need to increase periodically in line with some index.

[Richard10002]

3 hours ago, Wanted said:

We’ll see, i’d Like to think that as me and my family live in a caravan on a yard with no excess room or belongings greater than our needs that we would be down the bottom of the scaffold rather than on it. I run as much on solar as possible and I only ever work for non profit organisations. I’m proud of being working class. 

Given that I live in Liam Fox’s constituency and only a Molotov cocktails throw from Jacob Rees Moggs estate, I am pretty sure that we are safe. 

 

 

 

 

So..... in this particular scenario, you are suggesting that nobody actually needs a house to live in, they just need a caravan in a yard.

 

So why all the concern about landlords and their capitalist profiteering. If people have a choice between a caravan in a yard, and a house or flat rented from a landlord, and they choose the latter, who are you to tell them they are wrong.

 

Having said that.... can you imagine how the rents for caravans in yards would rocket if people chose this option. You would then be moaning about profiteering caravan and yard owners.

[Athy]

37 minutes ago, Cheese said:

If is the case there should be plenty of opportunity for small builders, and others, to build houses and make excessive profits..., which I don't see is happening.

 

Not sure about the "excessive profits" bit, but around here local builders are certainly beavering away wherever there's a house-sized gap available. Houses are springing up like mushrooms.

[Wanted]

48 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Ah so you are in the same group as all those Civil Servants / Whitehall mandarins / members of the government and opposition. When are you getting your knighthood?

I would neither want nor accept one, I don’t really understand your point. 

11 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

So..... in this particular scenario, you are suggesting that nobody actually needs a house to live in, they just need a caravan in a yard.

 

So why all the concern about landlords and their capitalist profiteering. If people have a choice between a caravan in a yard, and a house or flat rented from a landlord, and they choose the latter, who are you to tell them they are wrong.

 

Having said that.... can you imagine how the rents for caravans in yards would rocket if people chose this option. You would then be moaning about profiteering caravan and yard owners.

You are posing your questions as statements of fact and I’m finding difficult to respond, if you have made your mind up then we can’t discuss. 

 

Nowhere have I suggested that people should live in the way I do, I was responding to a specific question. 

 

But yes, I believe that choice would be increased given that ownership would not be an option. 

[Richard10002]

3 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

You make an assertion, and then almost immediately contradict it, how does that work? This 'paying of landlord's mortgages' hasn't gone on since time began. When it was builders who were renting out houses they would buy a plot of land on which they would put the house. This was bought with profits from previous house builds, as I said earlier if we are happy with the status quo, aren't too bothered about poorer people having nowhere to live and don't whine too much about rough sleepers, let's just maintain the current broken system. The house builders are content to keep the market 'lean' and I'm sure landlords wouldn't object to local authorities building council houses which undermine the current rents that they receive

How many 'poor church mice' have the funds to put down a deposit on a house? or perhaps you are right, I don't understand how BtL works and landlords don't need a deposit.

This 'traditionally seen' actually started in the early 1970's when house prices first started rocketting and gazumping became a national pastime. Between 1955 and 1969 when my parents paid off their mortgage, the price of their house had barely increased, merely kept pace with inflation. From the 1970's housing became an investment vehicle to make money for those who already had wealth.

1) I didn’t make an assertion and then contradict it. The second assertion was to do with timing in the cycle - owner occupiers don’t WANT to buy houses in a recession, so landlords aren’t buying property and displacing owner occupiers.

 

2) I don’t see the difference between a builder investing his money in a house that he builds and then rents out, and someone who invests their money in a second hand or new house. You seem to see one as kind and good hearted, and the other as “evil”.

 

3) where did you hear that landlords don’t need a deposit? I don’t know of any 100% BtL mortgages.

 

4) when I said “since time began”, I obviously didn’t mean it literally... and you know that.

 

5) I have stated on many occasions that the solution to the problem is a massive programme of house building. Nothing is stopping government building swaithes of social housing, so blaming it on the business decisions of house builders is a bit of left wing spin. I agree that both colours of government don’t seem motivated to build in the necessary volume, but that is not the house builders fault.

Edited August 23, 2018 by Richard10002

[nicknorman]

Im going to ask Admin if we could have a greenie type thing for Virtue Signalling. I could have given it a really good workout in this thread!

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/07/the-awful-rise-of-virtue-signalling/

[Richard10002]

1 hour ago, Wanted said:

 

I am saying that the ownership of property is the problem, there wouldn't be landlords. nobody would be on the streets 

Are you saying that government “owns”, (controls?), all property, and distributes it at no cost as it sees fit? Are you also saying that government “owns” all companies and runs everything, and distributes as it sees fit?

 

If so, who gets the lovely big detached house in the country, and who gets the little terrace in the arse end of a whole variety of places?

 

If so, who gets to be in the government that makes all these decisions for us?

 

Have you looked at how the Soviet Union has evolved? I don’t know a great deal about it, but, in the scenario you seem to desire, there will be some people running the show, and living lives of luxury, and others doing what they are told, and living lives somewhat less than luxurious.

 

Whatever the case, it would be nothing like the utopia that you think it would be. Human nature would take care of that, and disappoint you again.

[Richard10002]

57 minutes ago, Wanted said:

 

You are posing your questions as statements of fact and I’m finding difficult to respond, if you have made your mind up then we can’t discuss. 

 

Nowhere have I suggested that people should live in the way I do, I was responding to a specific question. 

Firstly, given that you know they are questions, I don’t see why it should be difficult to respond. Add the missing question marks, and read with a higher pitched inflection towards the end of the sentence, and I’m sure you could answer. In my opinion, your answer is a cop out

 

Secondly, I wasn’t suggesting that you had suggested that people should live like you do.... but you are making it quite clear that they could, if they chose to - aren’t you?

 

What you are doing is suggesting a wholesale change to the way the country runs, where the government control and dictate everything. In this scenario, I am guessing that people get what they are deemed to need, with less choice than currently exists - as I say, I’m guessing. Can you explain how it would work?

[Wanted]

29 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

Are you saying that government “owns”, (controls?), all property, and distributes it at no cost as it sees fit? Are you also saying that government “owns” all companies and runs everything, and distributes as it sees fit?

 

If so, who gets the lovely big detached house in the country, and who gets the little terrace in the arse end of a whole variety of places?

 

If so, who gets to be in the government that makes all these decisions for us?

 

Have you looked at how the Soviet Union has evolved? I don’t know a great deal about it, but, in the scenario you seem to desire, there will be some people running the show, and living lives of luxury, and others doing what they are told, and living lives somewhat less than luxurious.

 

Whatever the case, it would be nothing like the utopia that you think it would be. Human nature would take care of that, and disappoint you again.

What Government?

22 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

Firstly, given that you know they are questions, I don’t see why it should be difficult to respond. Add the missing question marks, and read with a higher pitched inflection towards the end of the sentence, and I’m sure you could answer. In my opinion, your answer is a cop out

 

Secondly, I wasn’t suggesting that you had suggested that people should live like you do.... but you are making it quite clear that they could, if they chose to - aren’t you?

 

What you are doing is suggesting a wholesale change to the way the country runs, where the government control and dictate everything. In this scenario, I am guessing that people get what they are deemed to need, with less choice than currently exists - as I say, I’m guessing. Can you explain how it would work?

The issues is all of the assumptions that are being made, I am not a Marxist, I consider my beliefs as an Anarchist, there would be no Government.

 

[Gareth E]

1 hour ago, Wanted said:

I would neither want nor accept one, I don’t really understand your point. 

You are posing your questions as statements of fact and I’m finding difficult to respond, if you have made your mind up then we can’t discuss. 

 

Nowhere have I suggested that people should live in the way I do, I was responding to a specific question. 

 

But yes, I believe that choice would be increased given that ownership would not be an option. 

I'm sure you've thought this all through, you come across as being passionate with your beliefs. Tell me this: if the ownership of a home would not be an option, does this extend to other things. For example, how about cars or if they aren't allowed any more, bikes. Would these all be owned by the government? would each citizen receive an allocated time to use one, a ration if you like? How about clothes, would people own these or would they all be pooled? How about leisure activities, would people be allowed to own the likes of skis and fishing rods? Would leisure activities even be tolerated?

 

I'm genuinely interested because I can't see how preventing ownership of things could do anything other than catapult us back into the dark ages. I speak as someone who personally doesn't care much for possessions. I have my near 40 year old motor bike which if a possession can be loved, I do, but other than that I don't really give a toss. I value having free time more than material goods. Consequently I don't have much money, but I don't need much.  

[Wanted]

1 hour ago, nicknorman said:

Im going to ask Admin if we could have a greenie type thing for Virtue Signalling. I could have given it a really good workout in this thread!

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/07/the-awful-rise-of-virtue-signalling/

Something quite Trump-esque about you. Not sure if it's the repetition or the overreaction.  

[Wanted]

2 minutes ago, Gareth E said:

I'm sure you've thought this all through, you come across as being passionate with your beliefs. Tell me this: if the ownership of a home would not be an option, does this extend to other things. For example, how about cars or if they aren't allowed any more, bikes. Would these all be owned by the government? would each citizen receive an allocated time to use one, a ration if you like? How about clothes, would people own these or would they all be pooled? How about leisure activities, would people be allowed to own the likes of skis and fishing rods? Would leisure activities even be tolerated?

 

I'm genuinely interested because I can't see how preventing ownership of things could do anything other than catapult us back into the dark ages. I speak as someone who personally doesn't care much for possessions. I have my near 40 year old motor bike which if a possession can be loved, I do, but other than that I don't really give a toss. I value having free time more than material goods. Consequently I don't have much money, but I don't need much.  

Thing is, whilst most people think I am not realistic, I am fully aware that I doubt we will ever see my beliefs in action, or at least in my life time. The only thing I can do is to try and live in a way that emulates as many of those things as possible.

 

The bit that changes everything in your question for me is the bit about Government, as I said to Richard, I consider myself an Anarchist, there would be no Government. Self rule and DIY culture, seizing the means of production and living like humans and not robots.  

  

[nicknorman]

6 minutes ago, Wanted said:

Something quite Trump-esque about you. Not sure if it's the repetition or the overreaction.  

Maybe it’s the hair?

Just now, Wanted said:

Thing is, whilst most people think I am not realistic, I am fully aware that I doubt we will ever see my beliefs in action, or at least in my life time. The only thing I can do is to try and live in a way that emulates as many of those things as possible.

 

The bit that changes everything in your question for me is the bit about Government, as I said to Richard, I consider myself an Anarchist, there would be no Government. Self rule and DIY culture, seizing the means of production and living like humans and not robots.  

  

When was the last time anarchism worked? Hmmm, I think it was just before the Stone Age IIRC.

[Wanted]

11 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Maybe it’s the hair?

When was the last time anarchism worked? Hmmm, I think it was just before the Stone Age IIRC.

If the wig fits..

 

You think wrong,

 

Revolutionary Catalonia

Zomia

Strandzha Commune

Free territory (Ukraine)

Shinmin Autonomous Region

Paris Commune

My own yard!  

Apologies to the OP, It has just dawned on me that I am leading this waaaaaay OT, and in true Anarchist form am in breech of the forum (ghost) rules of discussing politics.

 

interesting discussion though!   

[KevMc]

8 minutes ago, Wanted said:

If the wig fits..

 

You think wrong,

 

Revolutionary Catalonia

Zomia

Strandzha Commune

Free territory (Ukraine)

Shinmin Autonomous Region

Paris Commune

My own yard!  

Apologies to the OP, It has just dawned on me that I am leading this waaaaaay OT, and in true Anarchist form am in breech of the forum (ghost) rules of discussing politics.

 

interesting discussion though!   

If it really worked, why aren't those places still in a state of anarchy? (I can't vouch for your yard)

[Wanderer Vagabond]

1 hour ago, Richard10002 said:

1) I didn’t make an assertion and then contradict it. The second assertion was to do with timing in the cycle - owner occupiers don’t WANT to buy houses in a recession, so landlords aren’t buying property and displacing owner occupiers.  I believe that telling us that,"... I have never experienced the scenario ..where..landlords deliberately pay more for a property than an owner occupier will..." followed by giving an example of where they will do precisely that should really constitute a contradiction in anyone's book.

 

2) I don’t see the difference between a builder investing his money in a house that he builds and then rents out, and someone who invests their money in a second hand or new house. You seem to see one as kind and good hearted, and the other as “evil”. But the vast majority of the money that current BtL landlords invest in property isn't their money, it is money borrowed from a building society/bank, who will want their cut from the profits. I haven't classified anyone as 'evil' they are merely taking advantage of a crap system.

 

3) where did you hear that landlords don’t need a deposit? I don’t know of any 100% BtL mortgages.There might just have been a hint of irony there, the poster claimed to be as poor as a church mouse, but this particular mouse was quite capable of raising the deposit for his BtL mortgage, the principle obstruction for most people when buying a house.

 

4) when I said “since time began”, I obviously didn’t mean it literally... and you know that.You need to say what you mean then, I've tried but I can't get the humour or irony in your comment.

 

5) I have stated on many occasions that the solution to the problem is a massive programme of house building. Nothing is stopping government building swaithes of social housing, so blaming it on the business decisions of house builders is a bit of left wing spin. I agree that both colours of government don’t seem motivated to build in the necessary volume, but that is not the house builders fault. At last an area of agreement!!! What is stopping government from building enough houses for the population is dogma, nothing else. The period that we have had over the past 10 years of low interest rates would have been the perfect opportunity for local authorities to borrow to build housing (known as infrastructure). It creates both employment and somewhere for people to live. This would then give them an income for future generations, except there is this stupid idea that once they've built the houses they then must give them away at a discount to the occupants. For those who don't think it's a crap idea, would they care to pressurise their MP to spread this 'wonderful' idea to the private sector and force private landlords to sell their rental properties to their tenants at a substantial discount? I wouldn't think so. You seem to see the house builders as some sort of innocent party in this, but they lobby Government to maintain the status quo since it is very much to their benefit. Do you really think Jeff Fairburn, the CEO of Persimmon, really 'earned' a £110 million bonus (this isn't his salary, it is what he 'earned' on top of his salary). Do you really think he'd want to change the status quo and build more houses? not a chance.

 

[Tuscan]

Talking of Persimmon above a friend works on one of their sites, there is a huge shortage of bricks which meant the other week they hired 21 flat bed lorries who went to Holland to collect enough to keep them going as there were none to be had in the U.K. there is a shortage of skilled workers he’s currently on 4 hrs overtime a day p,us 6 days a week having refused to work 7. So where is all this extra house building going to come from post Brexit. 

[Wanted]

35 minutes ago, KevMc said:

If it really worked, why aren't those places still in a state of anarchy? (I can't vouch for your yard)

It’s a good question, I think that Anarchy is more of a fluid movement and that to try and Pin it to regular constructs doesn’t work. 

 

In some one of these examples it was a means to an end, in others communities it is very much alive. Walk down to the real end of the diagonal Del mar in Barca and ask old old person if they think Anarchy is not in place. 

 

Intereting places like Zomia are held together by Anarchy, it’s fundamental for the peace of the region, largely made up of people fleeing authoritarian regimes. The will for it to succeed is very real. 

 

Our yard? Yeah, to be fair currently being overruled by the Tiny Dictator..