Private Landlords to Evict up to 200,000 tenants because of benefits cuts

the_flying_pig

Llubrevlis wrote: »

How do you work that one out?

Maybe you are thinking they will sell to someone who will leave the house empty? OK yes then you would be right.

well, you can get quite good money for houses if you sell them for scrap, all those valuabe bricks and stuff...


no, i mean, a bear version of a spuriously analytical chump like Hamish would probably trot out some daft pseudo-rigorous story along the lines of 'the sale of a pwoperdee from a BTL landlord to an owner-occupier would reduce both the pool of renter households and the pool of properties for rent by one, thereby having no impact on the balance between the supply and demand of rental properties', but this theory would be far too simplistic obviously... all i can really say for certain is that, going forward, there'll be somewhat [maybe only a few, maybe loads, it's hard to say] fewer would-be LLs wanting to buy and that the demand for owning residential property will fall somewhat as a result.

Harry_Powell

carolt wrote: »

What a nasty piece of work you are.

I hope your employer is happy with you posting abuse in work time.

Still, it fits - abuse your employers trust, abuse fellow posters.

Talking about yourself again carolt? You're one of the most abusive people on here with your constant, never ending search for attention, any attention, even bad attention.

You should try paying more attention to your husband and kids rather than being on here night and day. Perhaps you'll then receive a bit of attention in return and not crave it so much on here? Just a thought.

Harry_Powell

Chaos_A.D. wrote: »

There are quite a few 'baiters' on here, they know who they are, most here know who they are, best just to have your say and move on, don't react to them.

Some of them obviously use attack as a form of defense against their own insecurities, especially when there is a lot of money involved, as there generally is when talking of houses.

You're right of course AD, but carolt's venom is so widespread on this board that it's hard to ignore. We should all really stop rising to her bait and responding to her. Cheers for the advice AD, I'll try to follow it and I'd advise others to take a leaf out of AD's book.

BTW, I agree with you completely about the spammer on the other thread, how on earth can MSE towers turn a blind eye to those trying to tout products on a forum and yet PPR long-standing forum members for insignificant reasons. I believe you (with your banned AD9898 username) simply posted photographs of your willy?

Llubrevlis

Harry_Powell wrote: »

You're right of course AD, but carolt's venom is so widespread on this board that it's hard to ignore. We should all really stop rising to her bait and responding to her. Cheers for the advice AD, I'll try to follow it and I'd advise others to take a leaf out of AD's book.

The other option is that Carolt is right and all those who dont like the truth feel she is against them.

As far as I can see everything she says is nearer the truth than Hamish`s one sided blind drivel.

carolt

Harry_Powell wrote: »

You're right of course AD, but carolt's venom is so widespread on this board that it's hard to ignore. We should all really stop rising to her bait and responding to her. Cheers for the advice AD, I'll try to follow it and I'd advise others to take a leaf out of AD's book.

BTW, I agree with you completely about the spammer on the other thread, how on earth can MSE towers turn a blind eye to those trying to tout products on a forum and yet PPR long-standing forum members for insignificant reasons. I believe you (with your banned AD9898 username) simply posted photographs of your willy?

Funny that, Harry, because I seem to remember a number of your alter egos getting banned for precisely that 'venom' and 'baiting' you accuse me of. Clearly takes one to know one. Dithering Dad - banned. Another alter ego - Topov or something, IIRC? Banned.

I'm sure a few regulars can correct me if I've misspelt your past name.

It's odd that one as notorious as yourself for abusing fellow posters - to the extent he is repeatedly banned for it - should want to draw attention to his record like that. I'd recommend staying very, very quiet in future and hope that no-one rumbles you.

Too late now.

Shame.

Procrastinator333

I don't get why the same old gang feels the need to open up on Carol, I really can't see from any of her posts anythign that warrants such comments.

The thread really just reads like one group of children bullying another because they are different - in Carolt's case because she doesn't share your view.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Llubrevlis wrote: »

How do you work that one out?

Maybe you are thinking they will sell to someone who will leave the house empty? OK yes then you would be right.

You seem to be implying we live in a system of static size.....

Which would be an epic fail.

Given that the number of people is increasing at 400,000 a year, and the number of households is increasing at 250,000 a year, and the number of new houses being built is less than half of that, then the upwards pressure on both rent and house prices is immense.

Shifting a million extra houses from owner occupied into private rented over the last few decades increased the supply of private rented stock by 100% and held down the costs of rent to a point far below that which they would otherwise have been.

However that same transfer of stock only decreased the supply of owner occupied houses by around 5%, and according to the DCLG increased house prices by just 7.5%.

Transferring houses back to O/O from rented over the next couple of years will have a minimal impact on the supply and price of O/O, but a far bigger impact on the supply and price of the remaining rented stock.

silvercar

Procrastinator333 wrote:

I don't get why the same old gang feels the need to open up on Carol, I really can't see from any of her posts anythign that warrants such comments.

coughs!

28-06-10

carolt wrote:

But we can't have that, PN, because then the lazy parasite landlord class would have to actually earn and save towards their pensions like the rest of us.

29-06-10

carolt wrote:

And some of us have morals.

I could have easily bought into BTL at any point in the last decade and a half, but wouldn't as I despise parasites like you.

carolt wrote:

- there are people who actually put morals before cash.

I daresay having principles and living by them is entirely alien to you, unless you count Hamish's sole principle of 'I'm alright Jack', of course.

carolt wrote:

But not enough to sell my soul, so to speak, no.

Procrastinator333

silvercar wrote: »

coughs!

28-06-10


29-06-10

Referring to posts in this particular thread. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure not all of Carol's posts are sweetness and nice.

But from my viewing of this forum, the impression I get is that more often than not Carol get's ambushed by a group of 4-5 posters who then just multipost comments between themselves, eggin each other on and generally turning quite nasty.

I don't read all of the threads by any means so maybe I'm missing much, but that is the impression I get.

Even those posts you have highlighted are not in the same ballpark as comments posted on this thread alone.

For what it is worth, why is a landlord lazy and parasitic? If I'm ever of the opinion house prices are set to rise at anything like those previous rates I will be one of those parasytic landlords.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

Referring to posts in this particular thread. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure not all of Carol's posts are sweetness and nice.

cough cough.....

carolt wrote: »

Sad !!!!er.

carolt wrote: »

Well done Hamish. Keep it up.

Show the world what a pathetic tos5er you are.