Is it possible to become a millionaire (or near to) through investments?

Glen_Clark

bowlhead99 wrote: »

It stands to reason that if housing benefit is available for the lower paid

Some of the lower paid. For example the council are obliged to house women especially with children, but not single men of working age. Recent TV programmes featured a young homeless man working full time in a bookmaker's shop, another in Mc Donalds, whose pay for a full time job doesn't cover the cheapest rent in the area and for a while they managed to hold down a full time job whilst homeless - until the guy was sacked from Mc Donalds because he was unable to keep himself clean enough.
The problem is exacerbated by the Governments recent decision to pay housing benefit to the claimant instead of the landlord. Whilst this makes things easier for the Government because they don't have the impossible job of finding habitable accomodation for the level of housing benefit they are paying, (there is a benefit cap but not a rent cap) it has led to those who are guaranteed accommodation (eg. single mothers with children) blowing their housing benefit on fripperies, knowing that when they are eventually evicted the council will have to immediately rehouse them - probably at greater cost in hotel accommodation.
Wheras those the council don't have to rehouse, like the 60 year old male mechanic no longer able to work due to a brain tumour, was evicted from his tiny 2 bed terraced house due to the bedroom tax. Cameron says he doesn't need the extra bedroom so could move to one bedroom accommodation. The fact that ther is no one bedroom accommodation available for the level of housing benefit he gets is his problem, not Cameron's, so he is evicted on to the street with no obligation to re house him.

BananaRepublic

Glen_Clark wrote: »

You can google it if you want to educate yourself, or if you think I am wrong.

You make extreme assertions, the onus is on you to prove them.

BananaRepublic

Glen_Clark wrote: »

Some of the lower paid. For example the council are obliged to house women especially with children, but not single men of working age. Recent TV programmes featured a young homeless man working full time in a bookmaker's shop, another in Mc Donalds, whose pay for a full time job doesn't cover the cheapest rent in the area and for a while they managed to hold down a full time job whilst homeless - until the guy was sacked from Mc Donalds because he was unable to keep himself clean enough.
The problem is exacerbated by the Governments recent decision to pay housing benefit to the claimant instead of the landlord. Whilst this makes things easier for the Government because they don't have the impossible job of finding habitable accomodation for the level of housing benefit they are paying, (there is a benefit cap but not a rent cap) it has led to those who are guaranteed accommodation (eg. single mothers with children) blowing their housing benefit on fripperies, knowing that when they are eventually evicted the council will have to immediately rehouse them - probably at greater cost in hotel accommodation.
Wheras those the council don't have to rehouse, like the 60 year old male mechanic no longer able to work due to a brain tumour, was evicted from his tiny 2 bed terraced house due to the bedroom tax. Cameron says he doesn't need the extra bedroom so could move to one bedroom accommodation. The fact that ther is no one bedroom accommodation available for the level of housing benefit he gets is his problem, not Cameron's, so he is evicted on to the street with no obligation to re house him.

They are undoubtedly distressing cases, but what do these examples have to do with the thread title and the original post?

bowlhead99

Contention by BananaRep: employment has gone up and it is actual new employment not fake jobs

Glen_Clark wrote: »

So why is so much housing benefit claimed by people doing your 'real' zero hours contract jobs?

Response by Bowlhead: Well, that's because housing benefit is more likely to be claimed by people who are lower paid or work less. It doesn't mean the increase in employment is fake or that the government stats are a lie.

Glen_Clark wrote: »

Some of the lower paid. For example the council are obliged to house women with children blahblah TV program with man with full time job at McDonald's, blah blah man with job at the bookies , blah blah blah man with brain tumour can't work and is told the state doesn't owe him a spare bedroom blah blah

That rant is absolutely nothing to do with the contention that new jobs (some with zero guaranteed hours, some with part time hours, some full time) have been created and are genuine new employment not fake jobs as you contend. Nobody in your example is on a zero hours contract.

Cameron says he doesn't need the extra bedroom so could move to one bedroom accommodation.

Yes, I'm sure the prime minister personally went round to his house and carried out the needs assessment himself and then kicked him out into the street. Rather than, for example, supporting a general policy that people shouldn't expect us to give them, for free, more bedrooms than they have adults in their household if alternative accommodation is offered.

Of course there will be losers and outliers which make the news and TV precisely because they are exceptional or 'unfair' cases, and we don't always get the full story on those once they have been through the media anyway, and there are lots of stories we don't get at all.

But your desire to drag any conversation off any topic and onto what you really want to rant about is now becoming the stuff of legend among the troll community.

:beer:

Glen_Clark

BananaRepublic wrote: »

You make extreme assertions, the onus is on you to prove them.

I don't have to prove anything, least of all to you. Its only a discussion forum. If I didn't have more useful things to do with my time I could dig up all the facts and figures to prove a point, but I doubt if you would understand or even read them so why should I bother?

Glen_Clark

bowlhead99 wrote: »

not fake jobs as you contend.

No I did not say the jobs were 'fake'..

bowlhead99 wrote: »

if alternative accommodation is offered.

It wasn't. The guy was polite, offered no resistance, and walked out of the tiny 2 bed house he had kept immaculate for the last 10 years, carrying what he could. The Head Baliff from the High Court turned to face the camera and said 'This is appalling' - is the Head Baliff one of your 'trolls' too?

BananaRepublic

Glen_Clark wrote: »

I don't have to prove anything, least of all to you. Its only a discussion forum. If I didn't have more useful things to do with my time I could dig up all the facts and figures to prove a point, but I doubt if you would understand or even read them so why should I bother?

Why do you have to continually try to divert the thread with your obsessive political rants? Find a politics forum to post in, with like minded people, rather than trolling this one.

bowlhead99

BananaRepublic wrote: »

Why do you have to continually try to divert the thread with your obsessive political rants? Find a politics forum to post in, with like minded people, rather than trolling this one.

To be fair, the question from the OP in post 1 was answered in post 2, so there isn't really anything more to say on the original topic, surely. The OP who popped up to make a flurry of posts one unemployed afternoon has long since departed.

Maybe if everyone vents their spleen here rather than on the "debate the economy" board they will have tired of it by the time the next truly incisive saving & investment question comes along.

________________________________________________________________
I do not care whether the council tax on Buckingham Palace costs more or less than that which is charged on a different house in a different part of the country.

Glen_Clark

BananaRepublic wrote: »

Why do you have to continually try to divert the thread with your obsessive political rants? Find a politics forum to post in, with like minded people, rather than trolling this one.

As I explained many posts back, you shouldn't ignore politics in making successful investment decisions. For example someone with an insight into the politcal climate would have seen that property speculation was going to be more lucrative than productive industry, because that is the sector politicians were going to manipulate to increase landlord returns. Or that weapons manufacturers were going to be most lucrative, or bank bondholders, because politicians were going to bail them out too.
Since you haven't even taken that in, I am glad I didn't waste time digging up anything more complicated in links to facts and figures.

BananaRepublic

Glen_Clark wrote: »

As I explained many posts back, you shouldn't ignore politics in making successful investment decisions. For example someone with an insight into the politcal climate would have seen that property speculation was going to be more lucrative than productive industry, because that is the sector politicians were going to manipulate to increase landlord returns. Or that weapons manufacturers were going to be most lucrative, or bank bondholders, because politicians were going to bail them out too.
Since you haven't even taken that in, I am glad I didn't waste time digging up anything more complicated in links to facts and figures.

Why do you continually make the same points? As Bowelhead said earlier, you have become a legend among trolls.