We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

Debate House Prices


In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide

Universal credit = more riots.

1234579

Comments

  • pqrdef
    pqrdef Posts: 4,552 Forumite
    and believe it's a political agenda you are pumping.
    Er yes, it's a bit difficult to discuss government policies in a politics-free way, unless you think the Tories are politically neutral.
    "It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis
  • pqrdef
    pqrdef Posts: 4,552 Forumite
    llubdlog wrote: »
    Can you not see the harm in keeping interest rates too low for too long?
    Not much anybody can do about gilt yields. If they rose, money would move into gilts from equities and pull them down again.

    They'll rise when equities and other investments become more competitive, but that won't happen until the economy is growing.

    If there was going to be a debt crisis, the time for it was when the government pumped inconceivable amounts of money into rescuing the banks. But nobody batted an eyelid.
    "It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis
  • merlin68
    merlin68 Posts: 2,405 Forumite
    The work is out there though. Me an Oh went self employed in May and are working non stop. Don't get any means tested benefits since yesterday now. He was made redundant 2 years ago.
    I umed and ahed about going self employed, but glad I did now. His got some major jobs coming through now all word of mouth. We do a bit of everything. Gardening, cleaning, ironing, carpet cleaning. Next week we are delivering yellow pages, the guy said he would give us some work leaflet droppping as well. the carpet he cleaned today as led to this landlord wanting a handyman for all his properties. another one who we started by cleaning for now wants a seven bedrromed house decorated and chandeliers put up.
  • pqrdef
    pqrdef Posts: 4,552 Forumite
    merlin68 wrote: »
    The work is out there though.
    I never said it wasn't, I said not everybody is up to it. There are a lot of people out there who you wouldn't want to have doing your gardening or cleaning your carpet. I've had work done by people who were trying to make an honest living, but frankly, they should have been banned from working, in the public interest.
    "It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis
  • Graham_Devon
    Graham_Devon Posts: 58,560 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    pqrdef wrote: »
    Er yes, it's a bit difficult to discuss government policies in a politics-free way, unless you think the Tories are politically neutral.

    So can you answer my other questions? Or am I to continue not believing you?

    You have made a bold statement. Just wondering if you can actually tell us how you statement is true.
  • StevieJ
    StevieJ Posts: 20,174 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    merlin68 wrote: »
    The work is out there though. Me an Oh went self employed in May and are working non stop. Don't get any means tested benefits since yesterday now. He was made redundant 2 years ago.
    I umed and ahed about going self employed, but glad I did now. His got some major jobs coming through now all word of mouth. We do a bit of everything. Gardening, cleaning, ironing, carpet cleaning. Next week we are delivering yellow pages, the guy said he would give us some work leaflet droppping as well. the carpet he cleaned today as led to this landlord wanting a handyman for all his properties. another one who we started by cleaning for now wants a seven bedrromed house decorated and chandeliers put up.

    Great, always good to hear of a little bit of success in life, hope it all works out for you, just remember what happened to Del and Rodders when they attempted that:)
    'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher
  • StevieJ
    StevieJ Posts: 20,174 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    pqrdef wrote: »
    I never said it wasn't, I said not everybody is up to it. There are a lot of people out there who you wouldn't want to have doing your gardening or cleaning your carpet. I've had work done by people who were trying to make an honest living, but frankly, they should have been banned from working, in the public interest.

    I once went to view a house, the guy said I have done all my own house improvements, really proud he was:eek: I just smiled :)
    'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher
  • StevieJ
    StevieJ Posts: 20,174 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    So can you answer my other questions? Or am I to continue not believing you?

    You have made a bold statement. Just wondering if you can actually tell us how you statement is true.

    Fair dinkum, at least they were questions this time, complete with question marks, least he can do is answer after you have gone to so much trouble.
    'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher
  • MacMickster
    MacMickster Posts: 3,647 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    llubdlog wrote: »
    Yes so the £500 benefit cap is a good idea, and will have to go ahead even if it does indeed cause a mass exodus out of expensive areas in London.

    But they will probably smash the places up, before they are forced to move next year.

    It will also have profound implications on rents and house prices in the capitol.

    More supply and less demand = lower prices, rents and house prices.
    This is exactly the problem. Benefits are keeping rents artificially high -and above the level that those not on benefits can afford.

    Someone on average wage would take home around £1600 per month, and could probably afford no more than around £600 per month in rent. Surely housing benefit should be restricted to this level.
    "When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
  • Someone on average wage would take home around £1600 per month, and could probably afford no more than around £600 per month in rent. Surely housing benefit should be restricted to this level.

    This, I feel, is the 'nub' of any benefits debate. In a lot of cases, so-called 'Housing Benefit' of c£10K is by far the largest cost to the taxpayer.

    I often wonder what the 'average' chav would prefer himself? If, say, 'Idle Jack' was being paid £8K Income support etc. plus £10K Housing benefit, how would he react to a suggestion of moving to a £6K property, and receiving an enhanced £10K in cash benefits - perversely saving the tax payer £2K?

    But however justified the reduction seems, where do we find all these 'available' properties that cost only £6K rent, or less? We could build them out of plywood, but it wouldn't take long for them to become ghettos and the focus of huge complaints from the 'human rights' brigade....

    I have never heard of this sort of 'benefits problem' occurring anywhere else in Europe, despite their high unemployment rates. Does anyone know what other countries do to the 'typical' long-term unemployed family of four? Do they get a 'nice' semi, and an overall 'package' costing more (or close to) the country's average wage?
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 353.7K Banking & Borrowing
  • 254.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 455.1K Spending & Discounts
  • 246.8K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 603.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 178.2K Life & Family
  • 260.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.