Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
sailor0500

Housing Benefit ending for Canal License.

Featured Posts

15 minutes ago, Athy said:

As I'm not a member of that particular brigade, I shall have to take your word for it. Did you not feel able to answer my question?

But I'm pleased that you agree with me.

 

I answered your original question, you seem to have no concept of what is happening in the world, people need to claim housing benefit due to the high rent prices and low incomes, you then simply denied this, making you out of touch whilst also burying your head in the sand.

 

No further question needed to be answered.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dave Payne said:

 

I answered your original question, you seem to have no concept of what is happening in the world, people need to claim housing benefit due to the high rent prices and low incomes, you then simply denied this, making you out of touch whilst also burying your head in the sand.

 

 

 

 

Not so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Athy said:

Not so.

“An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a definite proposition... A contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says." 

No, it's not...”

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

Households where one parent earns above £60k don't get child benefit. Although they can still claim the benefit there is a 100% tax charge applied to the highest earning partner. The tax charge commences at £50k and becomes 100% at £60k.

 

it leads to a slightly strange situation where a household can earn £99k and still get child benefit whereas one earning £60k might not.

 

JP

If anyone here is in this situation, then this piece in The Guardian could be important to you. Reading the full article is well worth while.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/jul/28/beware-forgoing-child-benefit-could-cost-you-your-state-pension

 

Beware: forgoing child benefit could cost you your state pension

"Last year approaching half a million women opted out of receiving child benefit. An unknown number never applied in the first place. Why? Almost certainly because their partner was earning more than £60,000 a year, which is the final cut-off point for the payment. But while they save their partner the hassle of having to fill in a self-assessment tax form, the ones who have not applied may also be unwittingly denying themselves a full state pension."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, peter n said:

“An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a definite proposition... A contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says." 

No, it's not...”

Very good! Faced with misinformed and at times abusive statements which seem designed to start a bad-tempered fight, I would rather not get into any such fight, but simply state that I disagree.  As I have been a private landlord for over a decade, I feel that I have some knowledge of the market. 

Edited by Athy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Athy said:

Very good! Faced with misinformed and at times abusive statements which seem designed to start a bad-tempered fight, I would rather not get into any such fight, but simply state that I disagree.  

 

You’re not disagreeing, you’re simply contradicting which as explained above is not debating. 

 

Setting out your reasons for disagreeing is good form in a debate, and not lazily gainsaying your opponent. It looks as though you are too inarticulate to support your opinion which you are obviously not, which leaves us with just lazy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

You’re not disagreeing, you’re simply contradicting.

The two do often go together. I disagree, so I say so, which you could call contradicting. It's not uncommon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Athy said:

The two do often go together. I disagree, so I say so, which you could call contradicting. It's not uncommon.

 

But one thing for sure, stating 'I disagree' without supporting your position it isn't engaging in debate. And as you point out this is a discussion forum. Discussing and debating are synonyms in this context.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, arbutus said:

If anyone here is in this situation, then this piece in The Guardian could be important to you. Reading the full article is well worth while.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/jul/28/beware-forgoing-child-benefit-could-cost-you-your-state-pension

 

Beware: forgoing child benefit could cost you your state pension

"Last year approaching half a million women opted out of receiving child benefit. An unknown number never applied in the first place. Why? Almost certainly because their partner was earning more than £60,000 a year, which is the final cut-off point for the payment. But while they save their partner the hassle of having to fill in a self-assessment tax form, the ones who have not applied may also be unwittingly denying themselves a full state pension."

This is a good point and should be more widely known.

I did wonder how my wife had so  many years pension credit until I round out that credit was given for receiving child benefit in the same way as if one was working.

 

Of course they've now taken it all back by increasing my wife's pension age to 66 1/2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

But one thing for sure, stating 'I disagree' without supporting your position it isn't engaging in debate. And as you point out this is a discussion forum. Discussing and debating are synonyms in this context.

 

 

Very good.

I made it clear that I was not interested in being drawn into a bad-tempered fight, and I am not. Hence I kept my replies succinct.

But since you ask, it is certainly not my experience that rent rises have far outstripped pay rises. I speak from some experience, but you can speak from far more: what do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Athy said:

Very good.

I made it clear that I was not interested in being drawn into a bad-tempered fight, and I am not. Hence I kept my replies succinct.

But since you ask, it is certainly not my experience that rent rises have far outstripped pay rises. I speak from some experience, but you can speak from far more: what do you think?

 

I find the same. Rents are not that much higher here in Reading than 20 years ago, possibly no higher at all when adjusted for inflation. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Athy said:

Very good.

I made it clear that I was not interested in being drawn into a bad-tempered fight, and I am not. Hence I kept my replies succinct.

But since you ask, it is certainly not my experience that rent rises have far outstripped pay rises. I speak from some experience, but you can speak from far more: what do you think?

I’m sure it is very much a regional / supply and demand thing. The rental on my flat in Aberdeen has gone from a high of £995 in 2014 to £700 in 2018, due the slump in the oil industry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

I’m sure it is very much a regional / supply and demand thing. The rental on my flat in Aberdeen has gone from a high of £995 in 2014 to £700 in 2018, due the slump in the oil industry.

 

The lumpiness of the market can confuse people. I have a nice two bed terrace in the town centre that made £750pcm when I first bought it in 1997. Every re-let since was always for the same £750pcm so falling behind with inflation. I've just re-let now for £950pcm so on the face of it this looks a swinging rise in rent of 26%, but that is actually 26% over a 20 year time frame. If we took inflation to be 3% pa over the last 20 years the rent should be £1,354pcm. So Reading tenants nowadays are benefitting from a massive fall in rents in real terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Athy said:

The two do often go together. I disagree, so I say so, which you could call contradicting. It's not uncommon.

Don't argue wiv 'im 'arold - just 'it 'im...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by billS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

The lumpiness of the market can confuse people. I have a nice two bed terrace in the town centre that made £750pcm when I first bought it in 1997. Every re-let since was always for the same £750pcm so falling behind with inflation. I've just re-let now for £950pcm so on the face of it this looks a swinging rise in rent of 26%, but that is actually 26% over a 20 year time frame. If we took inflation to be 3% pa over the last 20 years the rent should be £1,354pcm. So Reading tenants nowadays are benefitting from a massive fall in rents in real terms.

Inflation may well have gone up but, since the financial crash 10 years ago, wages have gone down in real terms (only just recently has that changed) so if your rents have fallen in real terms, so have wages thus Reading tenants will see no benefit from flat-lined rents at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I find the same. Rents are not that much higher here in Reading than 20 years ago, possibly no higher at all when adjusted for inflation. 

 

 

Interesting. My month's rent in 1978 was £27 for a privately rented four room flat. My daughter's is currently £500 with one more bedroom in social housing. Anyone work that out with the inflation rates? That's on the Wirral. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Interesting. My month's rent in 1978 was £27 for a privately rented four room flat. My daughter's is currently £500 with one more bedroom in social housing. Anyone work that out with the inflation rates? That's on the Wirral. 

 

£27.00 in 1978 is £159.92 now, adjusted for inflation, according to theMoneyWeek inflation calculator.

 

So that is one helluva rise in rents between 1978 and 1997 after which rents broadly plateaued for 15+ years. 

 

It was £27 a month, not a week? 

 

Edit to add:

 

I'd say this reflects interest rates actually. When interest rates fall, asset prices rise. Should base rates return to the 15% region of that period, property prices and probably rents too, will plummet.

Edited by Mike the Boilerman
Add a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

£27.00 in 1978 is £159.92 now, adjusted for inflation, according to theMoneyWeek inflation calculator.

 

So that is one helluva rise in rents between 1978 and 1997 after which rents broadly plateaued for 15+ years. 

 

It was £27 a month, not a week? 

 

Edit to add:

 

I'd say this reflects interest rates actually. When interest rates fall, asset prices rise. Should base rates return to the 15% region of that period, property prices and probably rents too, will plummet.

I thought you were old enough to remember 1978, there is no way the rent would be £27 a week. I didn't earn over £100 per week until 1983, so a weekly rent such as that would have been more than I earned. At the time however I had little or no difficulty in paying my rent so we can assume that the £27 given is a fair reflection of general rents.

 

The Bank of England inflation calculator ( https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation/inflation-calculator   )gives even worse details saying that £27 in 1978 is worth £147.26 today. This explains why it is becoming increasingly difficult for anyone whose family do not already own property, to get on the housing ladder, you could look on it as the new 'Landed Gentry' if you like.

Edited by Wanderer Vagabond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

I thought you were old enough to remember 1978, there is no way the rent would be £27 a week. I didn't earn over £100 per week until 1983, so a weekly rent such as that would have been more than I earned. At the time however I had little or no difficulty in paying my rent so we can assume that the £27 given is a fair reflection of general rents.

 

The Bank of England inflation calculator ( https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation/inflation-calculator   )gives even worse details saying that £27 in 1978 is worth £147.26 today. This explains why it is becoming increasingly difficult for anyone whose family do not already own property, to get on the housing ladder, you could look on it as the new 'Landed Gentry' if you like.

Talking of 1978, the population has increased by 35% since then. That should give a fair clue as to why rents have become more expensive. There again, you can still rent a house in the vast majority of the country for around £600 a month, less in many areas. Good luck trying to find a house to rent in the likes of Germany, France, Holland, Belgium etc. for a similar figure.

 

I guess the other relatively rich countries in Europe must have sold off all of their council housing too.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gareth E said:

Talking of 1978, the population has increased by 35% since then. That should give a fair clue as to why rents have become more expensive. There again, you can still rent a house in the vast majority of the country for around £600 a month, less in many areas. Good luck trying to find a house to rent in the likes of Germany, France, Holland, Belgium etc. for a similar figure.

 

I guess the other relatively rich countries in Europe must have sold off all of their council housing too.   

 

Would be interesting to discover the corresponding increase in housing stock since 1978 too. Anyone have any idea? Not that the two stats are closely related. 'Accommodation' is a weird thing, in that demand for it is very elastic. When we feel wealthy we buy more of it than we need (i.e. bigger houses, spare bedrooms etc) , and vice versa. When poor we squeeze ourselves into smaller properties. 

 

The general rise in overall wealth since 1978 has resulted in more demand for limited stock of housing as well as falling interest rates. Lenders lend higher income multiples too when interest rates fall, which pushes up asset values. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Would be interesting to discover the corresponding increase in housing stock since 1978 too. Anyone have any idea? Not that the two stats are closely related. 'Accommodation' is a weird thing, in that demand for it is very elastic. When we feel wealthy we buy more of it than we need (i.e. bigger houses, spare bedrooms etc) , and vice versa. When poor we squeeze ourselves into smaller properties. 

 

The general rise in overall wealth since 1978 has resulted in more demand for limited stock of housing as well as falling interest rates. Lenders lend higher income multiples too when interest rates fall, which pushes up asset values. 

 

 

 

 

I don't know but the demand has certainly risen by more than the increase in population. Higher divorce rates, more people choosing to live alone, government obsession with looking after single parents are all factors that suggest the demand might be 50% more than back then. Also we might look at new housing being built. The vast majority are family homes on new estates. All well and good but the higher demand is for smaller units, as less households are now husband, wife and 2 kids. The reality is that we should be building many more smaller homes (no garden required) for single people, the elderly etc. This won't happen because, I suspect, the profits are smaller for the house builders. Also, it doesn't fit with the notion of 'family Britain', a notion trotted out by political parties of all persuasions, despite it having little relevance to modern day Britain.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Gareth E said:

Talking of 1978, the population has increased by 35% since then.

Where on earth did you find that statistic? The figures I found on the internet suggest about half that - in round figures, 1978 Britih population 56 million, 2018 population 66 million.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Athy said:

Where on earth did you find that statistic? The figures I found on the internet suggest about half that - in round figures, 1978 Britih population 56 million, 2018 population 66 million.

 

The 35% population increase since 1978 figure is probably measuring the population by weight.

 

:giggles:

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

The 35% population increase since 1978 figure is probably measuring the population by weight.

 

:giggles:

:clapping: Splendid!

Come to think of it, in recent years I've noticed an increase in parents rolling their children to school in the mornings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.