Taxpayer funds familys £1,600 per week rent - The Times

zygurat789

Thanks for the thanks but lets do something once more unto the breach.
Trouble is all these parties with a couple of good ideas have no collective consistent policy. I looked at the Jury party, sounded good but the candidates
I looked at all had widely varying policies and the taxpayers alliance is probably too right wing for me. So it just has to be one small step at a time, pick the thing which annoys me most and vote for the party who'll stop it and then vote them out next time. What a way to run a country let's have a bebnevolent dictator.

bo_drinker

The_White_Horse wrote: »

you might as well. any other vote is just a complete waste, and if you are considering voting labour in again - god, it just doesn't bear thinking about.

They have all proved themselves as far as I'm concerned, they are thieving scum. And when did the expenses get introduced instead of pay rises ?? Under Thatchers lot

BitterAndTwisted

pipkin71 wrote: »

The last time I looked at the right to buy scheme, if the property's sold within 5 years of purchase, a percentage has to be given back to the council. Also, the longer someone has lived in their home, the cheaper they can buy it for.

You are correct about the new RTB owner having to repay the discount if the property is resold within five years of the date of purchase. I believe it's in increments of 20% per annum.

Under the old rules, the discount on the purchase price was calculated on the length of the tenancy. This has been abolished and there is now a maximum capped amount of about £40k or thereabouts so in some circumstances, in some areas of the country it doesn't make much sense any longer for LA tenants to take it up, especially for those in what will be come leasehold flats.

I was the fortunate recipient of the Tory-run GLC's attempt at some major gerrymandering in the 70s when they were offering flats and houses all over London in Labour-led LA's to people not on the waiting-list for housing. We had to prove the level of rents we were paying and our earnings and attend an in-depth interview at County Hall. I believe the fact that I was living in Richmond-Upon-Thames at the time was not accidental.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

Tory Zac Goldsmith admits he is a non-dom

AC GOLDSMITH, the green adviser to David Cameron and prospective Tory MP, has admitted that he claims non-domicile tax status, enabling him to avoid huge sums of tax on his estimated £200m fortune. In a disclosure that risks embarrassing the Conservative party, he confirmed that he is a “non-dom” who can legitimately escape paying tax on his inheritance from his late father, Sir James Goldsmith. Much of it is held offshore.

Non-domicile status is usually reserved for foreign nationals or people with roots overseas. It allows them to avoid tax on money earned outside Britain, unless they bring the money back into the country.
Although Goldsmith Sr was Anglo-French, Zac was brought up in the UK, mostly in the southwest London area where he is now standing for election. His campaign website states: “Zac grew up in Richmond and went to school in Richmond. He has lived in Richmond most of his life.”
In an unusual arrangement, some of his British properties are held offshore.

Goldsmith’s 300-acre ecological farm in Devon and a house in Richmond are both owned by companies based in the Cayman Islands. The farm was bought in 2001 and the house in Richmond was bought in 2007 for £7.75m. A house in Fulham, west London, was bought in 2004 and is owned by an investment company based in Liverpool.
A spokesman for Goldsmith, 34, whose sister is the writer Jemima Khan, said the homes were “made available” to him by a trust set up by his father. He confirmed that Goldsmith had non-dom status but was planning to change this.

Lord Oakeshott, the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, said: “Cameron must sack Zac Goldsmith as a candidate now. He’s not fit to sit in parliament, when he’s claimed non-dom status all his life to keep his offshore hundreds of millions free of income, capital gains or inheritance tax. He must pay the millions he’s dodged to the British taxman.”

Bet this won't be on the front page of the Sun tomorrow. Millions he's cost the tax payer.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936364.ece

I started a new thread on this because I know you would all be full of outrage over this, won't you?. Wasting MILLIONS of pounds worth of tax payers money.

ruggedtoast

zygurat789 wrote: »

Isn't the property sold for a % of the market value?
There are conditions in the councuil sale contract stipulating that if the property is sold within X years then X% of proceeds have to be repaid to the council. it sounds like half the story is missing - heard it in a pub?

No - I knew him and his girlfriend and went to his flat. He had a decent job and was saving for a deposit. They were in no rush becausehis rent was nothing and he knew when he bought it he'd be set for life. Something very sad happened that meant he couldnt buy it that I wont go into.

The council valuations are meant to offer something like a 30% discount. Theyre often way off and seem to be intentionally low. This was around 2001 and I think the council valuation came in at something like £150k.

You have to keep the property for 3 years. I have a family member who bought his flat for £30k and flipped it 3 years later for £130k. Its not uncommon at all, remember that cypriot guy on the Andrew Verity show who sold his Hackney council house and made half a million profit?

PasturesNew

ruggedtoast wrote: »

You have to keep the property for 3 years. I have a family member who bought his flat for £30k and flipped it 3 years later for £130k. Its not uncommon at all, remember that cypriot guy on the Andrew Verity show who sold his Hackney council house and made half a million profit?

Mathematically, the council lost the flat, your family member sold it to somebody ... probably a BTL person, who then set the rent at enough to cover a £130k mortgage, then got somebody in who will claim HB on the higher price. I've never understood why the council don't build houses because they can do it so much cheaper than everybody making a profit then just paying out the HB to the current leveraged owner.

laurel7172

I spent some time today with a "former asylum seeker", that is, a genuine refugee, born in a displaced person's camp and with a distressing level of knowledge regarding what happens when a bomb goes off.

He lives with his family in one room. Six of them, sharing mattresses on the floor. The father works, the older children are in college, and that's all they can afford.

We can all play anecdotes, but it's wrong to assume that everyone who comes here is handed a £200k lifestyle on a plate, or is unwilling to work hard to support themselves or better themselves (and pay tax). Cases like the one in the OP attract headlines precisely because they are exceptional.

lostinrates

laurel7172 wrote: »

I spent some time today with a "former asylum seeker", that is, a genuine refugee, born in a displaced person's camp and with a distressing level of knowledge regarding what happens when a bomb goes off.

He lives with his family in one room. Six of them, sharing mattresses on the floor. The father works, the older children are in college, and that's all they can afford.

We can all play anecdotes, but it's wrong to assume that everyone who comes here is handed a £200k lifestyle on a plate, or is unwilling to work hard to support themselves or better themselves (and pay tax). Cases like the one in the OP attract headlines precisely because they are exceptional.

Why is this family not entitled to more than one bedroom, or are they and they don't take it?

(I find the bedroom entitlement curiously interesting)

SingleSue

The_White_Horse wrote: »

when my parents sold their house, to downsize to a flat, i was considering buying it, and renting it to the council. However, the council wanted so much work done to it re heating systems, new wiring, new windows etc etc that i told them to f**k off. Unbelieveable, we lived in that house for 30 years, and kept it well but - BUT, it wasn't good enough for a load of HA/LA scumbags to live in??? They should be told "live here, or live on the street".

"Lefties - Truly the most dangerous people on the planet"

Ooooh you are seriously piddling me off now....I may live in HA housing but I am not scum!

laurel7172

lostinrates wrote: »

Why is this family not entitled to more than one bedroom, or are they and they don't take it?

(I find the bedroom entitlement curiously interesting)

I'm not really in a position to cross examine the family about their finances. I just get what slips out incidentally. Maybe they're on the council house waiting list. It is, after all, a myth that refugees get to jump the queue.

It is extreme, though. I can't help but wonder if there are some sort of tax credits or something they aren't claiming: due to pride, I should think, as one parent speaks English very well.