Oh here we go, why must every thread on the recession be turned into a "bash all those on benefits" type thread, it really does get quite boring and predictable once that happens.
Bless. I wonder if she'd like to come to my house, or the houses of thousands of not millions of people across the country and see the true meaning of struggling at Christmas?
You're greedy now if you want to earn more than £500 a week?
No, but if you moan and whine and bring out the "pity me violins" because you're "only" earning £500 a week, that's when you're greedy and need to get some perspective.
No, but if you moan and whine and bring out the "pity me violins" because you're "only" earning £500 a week, that's when you're greedy and need to get some perspective.
No, but if you moan and whine and bring out the "pity me violins" because you're "only" earning £500 a week, that's when you're greedy and need to get some perspective.
What about her friend's little girl who is only being budgeted for 50 quid but wants an iPad?
No! My memory was playing tricks on me. Sorry. I've looked back at the article. However in general, people who buy to rent are investing to provide themselves with an income, either now or in the future - perhaps as a pension when the mortgages are paid off, They are responsible for upkeep of the properties and are taking a huge risk, not only with their money, but with the tenants who might turn out to be bad payers or destructive. What's more they could have difficulties in getting them out.
.
The people who rent get a home to live in and don't have any responsibilities, what's more they can up sticks and move without the problem of selling. They do take the risk that the landlord will go bust.
She didn't buy to rent, she borrowed to rent. Secondly if it really was an "investment" she would have done due dilligence on her risk.
She was greedy and lazy, wanted to sit on her arse while the properties made money and never thought that she'd ever have to take a haircut on her "investment". Just like most of the "me too" BTL brigade.
Maybe she can pick a second hand (:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:) one from Entertainment Exchange or another 2nd hand shop. Just get her daughter a windows compatible PDA.
No, but if you moan and whine and bring out the "pity me violins" because you're "only" earning £500 a week, that's when you're greedy and need to get some perspective.
I don't think the writer of the article was looking for pity, I thought she was quite candid. She just said "now I'm lucky if I make £500 a week as a writer" People live to their usual means, if that is reduced considerably then they have the perspective that they have become poor, especially amongst their peers. That's not "greedy". I know I certainly couldn't survive on £500 a week, but I am living within my current means. People don't live in eternal anticipation of suddenly dropping to a much lower income.
Oh here we go, why must every thread on the recession be turned into a "bash all those on benefits" type thread, it really does get quite boring and predictable once that happens.
I don't think that at all, I think it is a wonderful system - if it were used for it's original purpose which was as a safety net for those who found themselves in difficult circumstances and needed temporary help and support.
However for a lot of people it is more financially beneficial to live on benefits rather than work for the same money or less. There is a lot that this can be blamed on - the Government for allowing this to happen, employers for not providing adequate wages etc.
Of course those that need it as temporary support should totally have it, it's the ones that use it solely as an income in the long term rather than to earn the money that bother me.
I don't think that at all, I think it is a wonderful system - if it were used for it's original purpose which was as a safety net for those who found themselves in difficult circumstances and needed temporary help and support.
However for a lot of people it is more financially beneficial to live on benefits rather than work for the same money or less. There is a lot that this can be blamed on - the Government for allowing this to happen, employers for not providing adequate wages etc.
Of course those that need it as temporary support should totally have it, it's the ones that use it solely as an income in the long term rather than to earn the money that bother me.
You're missing the point. It's much easier to keep the eternally ****less on government handouts than it is to rehabilitate them back into decent society. Plus, the supporting layers of bureaucracy create nice jobs for Guardian readers.
You're missing the point. It's much easier to keep the eternally ****less on government handouts than it is to rehabilitate them back into decent society. Plus, the supporting layers of bureaucracy create nice jobs for Guardian readers.
I didn't think it was that bad an article, she described a sudden change in lifestyle that a lot of people are going through as a result of the recession. It was an on-point piece, and even those who didn't live as she did can relate to that aspect of it, surely?
So what if she had more money than most? Presumably she earned that, and her lifestyle reflected that. Her money, her choice. I don't think she's greedy, rather she's just adjusting to not a minimal life change and no matter or rich or poor you are that can be difficult to cope with. I really don't understand this resentment of people with wealth.
That said, i did wince at the 'these people EXPECT these things from me', and in relation to her child. I don't think it's good for anyone to be taught they should automatically get what they want, life doesn't work like that. That kid is in danger of growing up with one hell of a sense of entitlement.
Oh, and i'm one who doesn't generally like the Daily Mail, though i discount it completely, nor it's merit as a source (all sources have merit: history 101)
In that vein, the Daily Mail is one of the biggest selling newspapers, but i'm not sure to what degree that shapes, and reflects, public opinions. For a start it's aimed at the middle-market with a circulation is 2,129,328 out of a population of 61,838,154 (according to the World Bank) so that's 3.4% i think. The majority of people that read it are 65+.
Consider also that newspaper, as a medium, is dying as more people get their news from the internet.
She didn't buy to rent, she borrowed to rent. Secondly if it really was an "investment" she would have done due dilligence on her risk.
She was greedy and lazy, wanted to sit on her arse while the properties made money and never thought that she'd ever have to take a haircut on her "investment". Just like most of the "me too" BTL brigade.
I don't think you got the drift of the above, I was talking in general terms about buying to let. I have looked back and see that they did buy a cottage in the Cotswolds as an investment. It's hardly evil.
She said they had two London properties, but we don't know how. It could be inheritance, or perhaps they each had their own property when they married. They might have bought the mansion as part of their new business, but even if they didn't, they now appear not to own any property at all.
She did have a job, so not actually lazy. I'm looking at her circumstances dispassionately and understanding how the change of circumstances would affect her.
Link not working. But if it's that awful article in The Daily Mail about the greedy middle class woman who bought loads of properties to fleece renters and is now for struggling for cash as they're all negative equity now. My heart really bleeds for the stupid bint.
One point on that, if people didnt buy to rent , then there would be no rental properties , and then where would people live ? after all the council wouldnt be giving the renters accommodation and they still couldnt afford a mortgage.
You're missing the point. It's much easier to keep the eternally ****less on government handouts than it is to rehabilitate them back into decent society. Plus, the supporting layers of bureaucracy create nice jobs for Guardian readers.
Those on benefits are no longer members of decent society?. :eek:
Comments
What an utterly superficial, vacuous woman.
No, but if you moan and whine and bring out the "pity me violins" because you're "only" earning £500 a week, that's when you're greedy and need to get some perspective.
Agreed.
What about her friend's little girl who is only being budgeted for 50 quid but wants an iPad?
Oh the tragedy! I may weep.
This calls for a mournful ode from the world's teensiest violin
It's not even a little girl, she's 15!!!
That's even worse!!!
If she somehow manages to get her iPad she might be disappointed when she learns none of the Flash games on Facebook work.
She didn't buy to rent, she borrowed to rent. Secondly if it really was an "investment" she would have done due dilligence on her risk.
She was greedy and lazy, wanted to sit on her arse while the properties made money and never thought that she'd ever have to take a haircut on her "investment". Just like most of the "me too" BTL brigade.
How dare you suggest that somebody as respectable as her reduce herself to 'begging' (according to middle class snobs the Big Issue IS begging).
Maybe she can pick a second hand (:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:) one from Entertainment Exchange or another 2nd hand shop. Just get her daughter a windows compatible PDA.
I don't think the writer of the article was looking for pity, I thought she was quite candid. She just said "now I'm lucky if I make £500 a week as a writer" People live to their usual means, if that is reduced considerably then they have the perspective that they have become poor, especially amongst their peers. That's not "greedy". I know I certainly couldn't survive on £500 a week, but I am living within my current means. People don't live in eternal anticipation of suddenly dropping to a much lower income.
I don't think that at all, I think it is a wonderful system - if it were used for it's original purpose which was as a safety net for those who found themselves in difficult circumstances and needed temporary help and support.
However for a lot of people it is more financially beneficial to live on benefits rather than work for the same money or less. There is a lot that this can be blamed on - the Government for allowing this to happen, employers for not providing adequate wages etc.
Of course those that need it as temporary support should totally have it, it's the ones that use it solely as an income in the long term rather than to earn the money that bother me.
You're missing the point. It's much easier to keep the eternally ****less on government handouts than it is to rehabilitate them back into decent society. Plus, the supporting layers of bureaucracy create nice jobs for Guardian readers.
Oh deary me we can't be having that can we...:rolleyes:
Well yeah that too!!
So what if she had more money than most? Presumably she earned that, and her lifestyle reflected that. Her money, her choice. I don't think she's greedy, rather she's just adjusting to not a minimal life change and no matter or rich or poor you are that can be difficult to cope with. I really don't understand this resentment of people with wealth.
That said, i did wince at the 'these people EXPECT these things from me', and in relation to her child. I don't think it's good for anyone to be taught they should automatically get what they want, life doesn't work like that. That kid is in danger of growing up with one hell of a sense of entitlement.
Oh, and i'm one who doesn't generally like the Daily Mail, though i discount it completely, nor it's merit as a source (all sources have merit: history 101)
In that vein, the Daily Mail is one of the biggest selling newspapers, but i'm not sure to what degree that shapes, and reflects, public opinions. For a start it's aimed at the middle-market with a circulation is 2,129,328 out of a population of 61,838,154 (according to the World Bank) so that's 3.4% i think. The majority of people that read it are 65+.
Consider also that newspaper, as a medium, is dying as more people get their news from the internet.
I don't think you got the drift of the above, I was talking in general terms about buying to let. I have looked back and see that they did buy a cottage in the Cotswolds as an investment. It's hardly evil.
She said they had two London properties, but we don't know how. It could be inheritance, or perhaps they each had their own property when they married. They might have bought the mansion as part of their new business, but even if they didn't, they now appear not to own any property at all.
She did have a job, so not actually lazy. I'm looking at her circumstances dispassionately and understanding how the change of circumstances would affect her.
One point on that, if people didnt buy to rent , then there would be no rental properties , and then where would people live ? after all the council wouldnt be giving the renters accommodation and they still couldnt afford a mortgage.
Those on benefits are no longer members of decent society?. :eek:
Maybe we'd actually be able to afford to buy.