[angel1ka]

Originally Posted by Job Seeker

I'm not taking the pi**.

All I have ever done is ask someone to look after some money for me.

Oh and sometimes I spend my JSA on expensive brandy and cannabis. That's only every fortnight or so

That made me laugh. Proper 'laugh out loud' laugh

I'm glad you're making the best of a bad situation, good luck with finding work.

[Job Seeker]

Thanks Angel.

I had a second interview this week and I should know the outcome early next week.

Time to open the Courvoisier and roll one up I think.

[Phil 2804]

Originally Posted by Turnbull2000

Then either they shouldn't be living in London, or the rent subsidy reduced substantially so ability to pay is dictated by income alone..

Just to clarify you would be the second Government supporter in the past week who has told me the low paid should be forced out of London?

Tesco will be very pleased with that one...

They have no right to expect rental income to match overheads (which can vary enormously). Are you really suggesting that a BTL landlord who pays out a quarter million quid for an 2-bed London mid-terrace should expect taxpayers to make up the difference of what working people can afford? I'm sorry, but that's just b*llocks. And what's market value? Is an investment priced and purchased on the expectation of a state subsidy to those who occupy a true 'market' value? Is it heck. Market value should be dictated by what is affordable on income alone, not by how much money a desperate government is willing to throw at investors in an effort to prop up prices

A quarter million for a 2 bed is pushing it.

Who says they buy with the expectation of ripping of the taxpayer? They rent to whomever can pay the rental asking price.

One could say the same about those who bought council houses on the cheap and then sold them a few years later at massive profit. I know one woman who walked away with a £100,000 profit doing just that.

The real issue which I noticed you sketched round is that we sold off all the council houses and didn't build any new ones. For that reason we're now housing people in expensive private rentals which are driven by market value. Hence the reason why the waiting list for social housing in London is in the hundreds of thousands.

Nothing this Government has suggested so far is going to remedy that and what it is doing will make it worse. Forcing the poor out of London either leads to a homelessness time bomb or will lead to massive price inflation in those areas of the country the descend on. No wonder its been likened to the Highland Clearances.

And once again it will be Labour that has to clear up the mess. Hopefully next time they will get it right and spend the money on new houses rather than on housing benefit to paper over the gaping hole and a minimum wage that pays all a persons reasonable living costs no matter where they live.

There is no point in working if at the end of the month you cannot even afford a roof over your head and food on your table.

[Tombstone]

Hmm - Highland clearances. There are 5 million living in England.

[sdvsr1982]

£102.75 a week!?!?

Try £65.45 a week.

[Turnbull2000]

Originally Posted by Phil 2804

Just to clarify you would be the second Government supporter in the past week who has told me the low paid should be forced out of London?

Tesco will be very pleased with that one...

Huh, government supporter? Does agreeing with a government policy somehow make me a fervent supporter? What complete sh*t.

Nobody's "forcing" them out. They can endeavour to earn more if they wish to live their. You know, stand on your own two feet. And like I've already stated, remove the subsidy and landlords will have to price accordingly i.e. lower rents to a level that median and below earners can afford on their income alone.

Originally Posted by Phil 2804

A quarter million for a 2 bed is pushing it.

Who says they buy with the expectation of ripping of the taxpayer? They rent to whomever can pay the rental asking price.

£250,000 for a two bed terrace in London is certainly not pushing it.

Investors are generally willing to pay a price based on the expectation of typical local rental values. If the benefit system is willing to pay say £350 p/w for a two bed terrace in London, then that's what landlords will demand regardless of local income levels.

If this benefit is slashed to £200 p/w, then the landlord must either reduce the rent to match or find a tenant willing to pay the original rent. The most likely outcome is somewhere in between, with those receiving high value subsidies having to move somewhere cheaper, and rents becoming more affordable for everyone else.

Originally Posted by Phil 2804

One could say the same about those who bought council houses on the cheap and then sold them a few years later at massive profit. I know one woman who walked away with a £100,000 profit doing just that.

The real issue which I noticed you sketched round is that we sold off all the council houses and didn't build any new ones. For that reason we're now housing people in expensive private rentals which are driven by market value. Hence the reason why the waiting list for social housing in London is in the hundreds of thousands.

Nothing this Government has suggested so far is going to remedy that and what it is doing will make it worse. Forcing the poor out of London either leads to a homelessness time bomb or will lead to massive price inflation in those areas of the country the descend on. No wonder its been likened to the Highland Clearances.

And once again it will be Labour that has to clear up the mess. Hopefully next time they will get it right and spend the money on new houses rather than on housing benefit to paper over the gaping hole and a minimum wage that pays all a persons reasonable living costs no matter where they live.

There is no point in working if at the end of the month you cannot even afford a roof over your head and food on your table.

Yes, selling off the council houses without replacements was a terrible mistake. But rents and housing costs are largely dictated by ability to borrow and ability to pay rent. If you subsidise rent, then housing costs will rise for all, with the only winner being landlords.

And Labour will clear up the mess will they? Is this the same Labour that presided over the biggest housing bubble ever, the biggest expansion of the landlord class ever, the biggest collapse in social housing construction ever, and the biggest fall in private house building ever? What a joke of a remark.