Support for mortgage interest (SMI) extended AGAIN

ILW

RenovationMan wrote: »

Argh. Guys! This sort of nonsense totally undermines the debate and all of the decent and considered opinions and points you have expressed before.

Your both intelligent enough and your points are valid enough not to need this sort of rhetoric. Come on, this is exactly the reason why bleeding-heart liberals win the moral high ground and the discussion.

Fair point.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Right so lets take this a step further.

You are a landlord. Are you saying there should be no way landlords can evict tenants?

No, you are not. And no one is here pretending you want all families kicked out on the streets with kids living in cardboard boxes everytime you disagree with making the tenancy laws better for tenants in this country....which you have done in the past.

Though I tell you what, I'll just bombard you with these comments next time you suggest ANYTHING that may see a landlord evicting a tenant for any reason....even if that reason is they cannot afford rent.

i'd stick to the discussion in question - this the thread is about SMI not about landlords tenancy laws

i appreciate you are very good at confusing the discussion with your chewbacca technique but stick to the subject. thanks.

abaxas

RenovationMan wrote: »

Argh. Guys! This sort of nonsense totally undermines the debate and all of the decent and considered opinions and points you have expressed before.

Your both intelligent enough and your points are valid enough not to need this sort of rhetoric. Come on, this is exactly the reason why bleeding-heart liberals win the moral high ground and the discussion.

My point is that you cannot use cost effectiveness in issues of morality, as they always come unstuck.

People should not gain advantage via socialism.

StevieJ

Percy1983 wrote: »

As I say I don't want families kicked out the second things go wrong, but if after 12 months they can't find anyway to support themselves they should be moved into whatever the goveremtn says since they are footing the bill.

By all means I would agree social housing needs a shake up.

I thought that is what they do anyway when someone is kicked out of their property, and it costs a fortune for B&B, don't worry if this govt can find a cheaper way, they will.

Percy1983

chucky wrote: »

i'd stick to the discussion in question - this the thread is about SMI not about landlords tenancy laws

i appreciate you are very good at confusing the discussion with your chewbacca technique but stick to the subject. thanks.

I do think its quite relevent.

You want to ramp house prices and SMI helps that and it causes less forced sellers. You claim you support this due to not wanting families kicked out on the street.

Yet I am more than sure if said families where in your property (the ones you keep trying to ramp the prices up on) and the yield wasn't there you would kick them out as soon as possible and get somebody else in who gives the yield you want.

By all means argue for SMI, buts lets be honest about your reasons for supporting it.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

This is the crux of my point. It's preferrencial treatment. Help I'm all for. I've said it over and over. But if we are going to start preferencial treatment on the basis of cost effectiveness....then apply it countrywide. There would be anarchy.

If that's the crux then the point has been missed.

No-one is suggesting preferential treatment on the basis of cost effectiveness. Rather a BALANCE between cost and effectiveness.

An example - child benefit stopping if there's a higher rate taxpayer in the household. It doesn't appear to be entirely fair that a household earning £80,000 can still get CB but one earning £45,000 can't. It's just pragmatic and cheap to apply. No anarchy.

chucky

Percy1983 wrote: »

I do think its quite relevent.

you would

Percy1983 wrote: »

You want to ramp house prices and SMI helps that and it causes less forced sellers. You claim you support this due to not wanting families kicked out on the street.

Yet I am more than sure if said families where in your property (the ones you keep trying to ramp the prices up on) and the yield wasn't there you would kick them out as soon as possible and get somebody else in who gives the yield you want.

complete rubbish but a gold star for switching the point of the debate and being inventive.

Percy1983 wrote: »

By all means argue for SMI, buts lets be honest about your reasons for supporting it.

i don't argue for or against SMI - i argue against the people that don't want SMI for all the wrong reasons like yourself.

it's not my fault you can't afford to buy a house - it's better if you look at yourself and not look for excuses like your date of birth.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

i'd stick to the discussion in question - this the thread is about SMI not about landlords tenancy laws

i appreciate you are very good at confusing the discussion with your chewbacca technique but stick to the subject. thanks.

Not relevant because you know what I said is completely and utterly true.

You would be totally against a system whereby the tenant in your home could rack up 12m of arrears before you could move on to new tenants.

It's totally relevant to the discussion because it's you saying people want families kicked out. But you'll simply pass this off as "sidestepping the debate" etc etc, and every other tired old excuse you come up with on every thread whenever challenged.

In a minute, you'll simply tell us were missing the point, yet won't, ever, tell us what the point actually is.

abaxas

chucky wrote: »

it's not my fault you can't afford to buy a house - it's better if you look at yourself and not look for excuses like your date of birth.

Of course you can make excuses and blame others in any fixed or manipulated market.

If the market for building was fair, we would not be in this situation.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Not relevant because you know what I said is completely and utterly true.

sorry to disappoint but your mind reading skills from an internet forum aren't very accurate.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You would be totally against a system whereby the tenant in your home could rack up 12m of arrears before you could move on to new tenants.

It's totally relevant to the discussion because it's you saying people want families kicked out. But you'll simply pass this off as "sidestepping the debate" etc etc, and every other tired old excuse you come up with on every thread whenever challenged.

i'm sorry, you're clutching at straws again.

maybe if you give your address i can send you a mega pack of straws so that you don't run out in future.