Positive action - what do you/can you do?

Pobby

This is a hard nut to crack. I have joined the site as I am very interested on hearing other peoples take on things.

Seems to me that we currently are in a place where old expectations have died for many.

Housing. Work hard and it used to be you would be able to buy a home.

Save and you would receive some interest for your efforts.

Save into a pension. Wasn`t that long ago that a fund would yield 9%. Stock markets for years did well. I think I am right in saying that the stock market fared better through the decade of the great depression than this decade has enjoyed.

It`s a strange world today, one that i am not used to.

Pobby

Just read back. Had a simpering local Labour MP sending me a leaflet about how squeaky clean she was when it came to expenses and invited my remarks.

In a polite fashion I e-mailed with a few questions. Why did GB say he wouldn`t let the housing market get out of control? He or his mates have done OK out of it.

Why make such a stupid remark as to say he had brought an end to boom and bust? Gordon Cannute I wonder?

Other points were made. Guess what kids? No reply. Well stuff `um. I certainly won`t be voting for Cameroon but Labour won`t be looking forward to my vote.

carolt

Pobby wrote: »

This is a hard nut to crack. I have joined the site as I am very interested on hearing other peoples take on things.

Seems to me that we currently are in a place where old expectations have died for many.

Housing. Work hard and it used to be you would be able to buy a home.

Save and you would receive some interest for your efforts.

Save into a pension. Wasn`t that long ago that a fund would yield 9%. Stock markets for years did well. I think I am right in saying that the stock market fared better through the decade of the great depression than this decade has enjoyed.

It`s a strange world today, one that i am not used to.

That is a great post. I think I was brought up with all those certainties - my parents come from the generation where all those things held true.

It is a different world, now, but I doubt a better one.

If working, saving etc are such difficult goals now for the individual, then how much longer can our model of society keep going? Can we continue to run a welfare state on the scale to which some have become accustomed? Can we continue to give tax breaks to the wealthy few out of the pockets of the hard-working, poor majority? How long until the riots star or the coffers run dry?

I don't know the answers to these questions, but I don't think ignoring them is the solution either.

ess0two

carolt wrote: »

Good on you, Jonny.

I had an amusing spat with my MP on Wikipedia when the expenses stuff started coming out - I edited and redited and redited his page until he gave up removing all the stuff about his wasting of our money on his personal expenses - about his huge property empire elsewhere, too, BTW.

I also wrote to him - he also ignored my letter.

Strange, that.

Stiil, it had to be done.

Come the election, I shall be keeping a close watch on that Wiki page, and possibly dropping a few choice leaflets.

You need to channel your're enthusiasm into something worthwhile,the thread is a lost cause,and berating and MP even worse.

Cleaver

carolt wrote: »

I think the argument for point 1 is that buying a property is not a productive business

<snip>

Since they got rid of MIRAS, potential landlords have an unfair advanatage over someone buying a home to live in - that the homeowner pays the mortgage interest out of taxed income, but the landlord doesn't.

I buy a property. I put it up for rent and someone who doesn't want to buy a propety then rents it out. I am a fantastic landlord and the tennant is really happy with the property and the service I provide. I have also done my sums and am making a profit on the venture, which means I pay tax because I have a successful business.

Which part of the above doesn't sound like a productive, profitable and (dare I say it) socially responsible business?

Most people who rent a property aren't concerned that they are 'paying the interest' of a mortgage. When I decide that I want to buy a TV from Currys, I don't really care how much money they are making from me, or what they are doing with the profit that they make from me. I have a deal that I think is the best for me and that's all I care about. I take the same approach when I rent a place from someone.

If the government introduced points 2 to 4 then all landlords would have to be top notch, otherwise better landlords would take their place. Unnaffordable housing (through shortages, speculators or whatever reason you want to pin on in) creates a bigger rental market, which in turn allows for more poorer landlords. This would stop landlords having an unfair advantage over homebuyers (although I question whether that's really the case now).

carolt wrote: »

Given that surely it is socially desirable for people to have the opportunity to buy their own house - a view I think all parties officially subscribe too - that state of affairs is inequitable and undesirable.

My Dad had a job working a considerable distance from home about ten years ago. He didn't want to move so rented a flat in his work location. He seemed to get a price and landlord he was happy with and it all worked out well for all concerned. Not everyone who wants a place to live wants to own that place, so there will (and should be) a place for decent landlords.

Proper, solid government policies should be in place to not allow house prices to rocket out of control. Taxing landlords more than all other businesses makes no sense and is an example of treating the symptom, not the disease (apologies for the crude analogy, but I'm sure you get what I'm saying).

Pobby

Ah but the thing is Carol we are derided by those in charge. We are assumed to be something that many of us are not.

Example. After my wife recovered from an illness which meant that she had a number of years not working we needed some advice in getting her back to work. The " advisers " from government agencies were worse than useless. Didn`t even keep appointments. Also as bright as ditch water.

We sought help from the Job Centre. What a laugh if it wasn`t serious. Benefits, benefits was all they could talk about. We said 1. we didn`t qualify. 2 We didn`t want them. The most helpful thing they did was send a letter telling us we didn`t qualify for benefits.

In an earlier life my wife was a computer training bod but didn`t fancy office work again so hardly an unskilled person.

lostinrates

Cleaver wrote: »

Points two to four seem very sensible and I think any sane person would sign up to them.

I just can't agree with point number one. If it's legal to open a small businesses in this country then the tax rate for all of those businesses should be the same, and should follow the same rules. If you increase the tax on one business where do you stop? I don't like Tesco (as I'm sure you well know). The answer to me not liking them is not using them, not insisting that they pay more tax because I'm opposed to their business model.

BTL landlords pay the same tax as any other business owner. If their customers like their product then they'll make a profit and will then pay tax on it. If there isn't a market for rental properties then less and less people will buy properties to rent out - it's basically up to the market to decide.

Anyway, number one is a moot point as if the government implemented points 2 to 4 then only the shrewd, organised and good landlords would make money. Rather than the situation we've had for 10 years when pretty much anyone owning a few bricks and a tin of white paint could make huge profits year on year.

I'm skim reading. I sort of agree with this, but then if a house is an investment as well as a place to live then in theory we are all using them as some sort of financial vehicle.....

I know thats being expressed a bit pants...but I'm not really that ...fussed.

If we really wan a campaign for change? Put wageslave in charge

carolt

lostinrates wrote: »

If we really wan a campaign for change? Put wageslave in charge

Wish I could thank that many times. :T :T :T

carolt

Cleaver wrote: »

Unnaffordable housing (through shortages, speculators or whatever reason you want to pin on in) creates a bigger rental market, which in turn allows for more poorer landlords. This would stop landlords having an unfair advantage over homebuyers (although I question whether that's really the case now).

I'm sure you get what I'm saying).

I don't get this bit!

Can you explain, as it's as clear as mud currently.

Got the rest - I think lir expressed my point of view on that...

tomterm8

lostinrates wrote: »

I'm skim reading. I sort of agree with this, but then if a house is an investment as well as a place to live then in theory we are all using them as some sort of financial vehicle.....

If you own a house that you rent out to someone else so that you can make a profit, it is a business. If you own a house that you live in, it is your home.