Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

GreatApe

[/QUOTE]

Rinoa wrote: »

Meanwhile, in the EU capital, they're distributing cardboard tents for the 2600 homeless living on the streets.l]

Just clear the streets of the homeless
>90% are drug or alcohol addicts

Put them in rehab or in prison (drugs are illegal but we don't jail many people for use)
For those thinking that is evil its surely better for the police to take them in process them and decide which is the best option. Prison rehab or if its just a kid that's run away from home social services etc.

The stupid idea is just to leave them there on the streets.
Having said that I am sure the social services do all that can be done
Those on the streets primarily want to be on the streets and most are repeat offenders.

GreatApe

LHW99 wrote: »

I think this is what somewhat troubles me.
I understand that living in one room with small children is not good, and more needs to be done. But these people are not IMO actually "homeless" - they are not rough sleepers living on the streets.
I think it would be more useful for these statistics to be broken down more. Shelter includes:

• staying with friends or family
• staying in a hostel, night shelter or B&B
• squatting (because you have no legal right to stay)
• at risk of violence or abuse in your home
• living in poor conditions that affect your health
• living apart from your family because you don't have a place to live together

as being included in the definition of homeless.
On that basis, is a student son or daughter living in their family home also homeless?
On that basis, I and my mother were "homeless" for the duration of my childhood, as we had to move in with my grandparents as she couldn't afford accomodation of our own as she was low paid. But no-one would have classed us as that, and we would never have got onto a social housing list as we had somewhere to sleep and even as a lone parent she would therefore not be a priority.

Plus a lot of the negative stays that exist show churn in the system and not actual problems

For instance there are something like 500,000 empty homes
However most of them are dilapidated
Why happens is daily hundreds of homes slowly become dilapidated
Many of the 500,000 homes get brought back to market
So it represents churn more than empty homes yet you never read that its portrayed as empty homes just sitting there.

Also headline unemployment numbers are misleading.
Actual unemployed is much lower
For instance a big fraction of that unemployed number are FULL TIME STUDENTS looking for part time work. Since they can only work certain hours of certain days they are hard to employ and have high unemployment rates. But what normall person would define a full time student as unemployed?
Also like the empty homes most the headline unemployed figure is churn. It's better to look at the 6+ month unemployed figure which is closer to 1.5% and some of them must be black market workers faking it.

Windofchange

GreatApe wrote: »

People in temporary housing are not homeless.

We only have a very small percentage of truely homeless people and almost all of them are drug addicts. I remember we had this conversation before and I linked to a BBC article showing that a big survey found 94% (I think it was 94% just going off memory might have been 96%) were on drugs or alcoholics and I suspect many of the remaining 6% were not telling the full truth.

Source Great Ape et al 2017.

How about 39% having drug and alcohol problems:

https://www.homeless.org.uk/facts/our-research/homelessness-and-health-research

Or 29% if you prefer Crisis:

https://www.crisis.org.uk/ending-homelessness/health-and-wellbeing/drugs-and-alcohol/

GreatApe wrote: »

Can you at least accept some of the following facts.

We are a high wage nation.
We have full employment (<2% unemployed longer term 6+ months)
We are a free people
Our police and army are good institutions (you don't fear a military coup or a police state)
We are liberal and accepting nation
We do a lot for the world giving much more than most Nation in foreign aid
Plenty of migrants have come to the UK and done well for themselves (long term migrants have higher house ownership than locals)
Lots of positives for the current system

Most of them yes. Not entirely sure what your point is, but I'm sure you'll confuse me / us with it shortly. I don't want a communist state before you suggest I do, but I don't see why we can't aim to do better for the losers in our current system. It is your general sweeping statements like everyone who is homeless is dysfunctional that get me. You are just way out. Maybe it is due to my line of work and dealing with this stuff day in day out - I have a lot more respect and understanding for the poorer in our society. I don't want to brand them all alcoholics and junkies, because they just simply are not as per the two links above. Doesn't mean I want armageddon, doesn't mean I want to drastically change anything, it just means trying to see the world through other people's eyes for a bit.

GreatApe wrote: »

As for your continual insistence on housing being unaffordable it doesn't stand up to facts. The majority of private renters are in private renting temporarily. Students people who move around the country for work recent migrants people who rent and own etc. Only 3% of Brits rent privately for more than 10 years. 97% buy or get a social house.

So, where have you got this fact from that only 3% of Brits rent privately for more than 10 years? How about this one from the English housing survey 2015 - 2016 (UK Gov):

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/627686/Private_rented_sector_report_2015-16.pdf

"Respondents were asked how long they had lived in the private rented sector in the most recent spell, even if they had lived at different addresses. A quarter of private sector tenants had lived in the private rented sector for less than two years, a quarter for more than two years, but less than five years, quarter for between five and nine years and quarter for 10 years or more."

The above suggests you are way out on your figures. Also, if we further unwrap your thinking, how does you celebrating that people may go into social housing prove affordability? Housing is affordable because people can either buy or get put in a council house? Where is the logic there? Wouldn't people rather buy than go into social housing? What about the below 2016 ONS report on housing makes you think that everything is getting more affordable and all is well?

https://visual.ons.gov.uk/uk-perspectives-2016-housing-and-home-ownership-in-the-uk/

"House prices have been increasing, and first time buyers are finding it more difficult to get on the property ladder – while home ownership among younger age groups generally has declined."

GreatApe wrote: »

It really isn't a problem its one of those fake news stories. I myself rented privately for 9 years. I added to the private rental stats but now I own. Private rental is churn. Your problem as has been proven multiple times is you really have a weak grasp of mathematics and logic yet you think you are second to none. The private rental sector being temporary churn is one fact you don't understand or want to IG ore for your own propaganda reasons.

This is a great country.
Free trade and capatilism is a great system

We have indeed covered this many times, and you still are unable to present numbers that stand up to any sort of scrutiny. Where have you got the only 3% don't manage to buy within 10 years from? Where backs up your claim that nearly 100% of homeless people are substance abusers?

You think that you have proven things multiple times, but most people on these forums are either laughing at you or have given up trying to engage. I have presented some figures / articles above refuting a lot of your claims. Can you do likewise, or are you going to continue with your ignorance?

GreatApe

Windofchange wrote: »

Source Great Ape et al 2017.

How about 39% having drug and alcohol problems:

https://www.homeless.org.uk/facts/our-research/homelessness-and-health-research

Or 29% if you prefer Crisis:

https://www.crisis.org.uk/ending-homelessness/health-and-wellbeing/drugs-and-alcohol/



Most of them yes. Not entirely sure what your point is, but I'm sure you'll confuse me / us with it shortly. I don't want a communist state before you suggest I do, but I don't see why we can't aim to do better for the losers in our current system. It is your general sweeping statements like everyone who is homeless is dysfunctional that get me. You are just way out. Maybe it is due to my line of work and dealing with this stuff day in day out - I have a lot more respect and understanding for the poorer in our society. I don't want to brand them all alcoholics and junkies, because they just simply are not as per the two links above. Doesn't mean I want armageddon, doesn't mean I want to drastically change anything, it just means trying to see the world through other people's eyes for a bit

The homeless topic is too political to get unbiased responses.
There are many reasons to lie to pretend drug use is low by the homeless to make it look like homeless people are homeless just because of bad luck and the Tories.
The truth is almost all of them are addicts I say this as I have members of my family who are police officers and deal with them. Why would they lie. I suspect the figures that show 'only' 39% are on drugs use figures for people who are not actually homeless eg people in short term b&bs

'Four out of five homeless people in Britain are regular drug-users - and almost half have used heroin or crack in the last month. The figures, far higher than previously acknowledged, have shocked homelessness experts.'

Even the lefty guardian has a piece on homelessness in Manchester saying 'Researchers estimate that 90-95% of homeless people in Manchester smoke the drug' in regards to the drug spice

You are a blind fool if you believe only 29% of the homeless are on drugs.
Accept the truth that it is almost all of them addicted to drugs and or alcohol and then deal with the problem. Pretending it's all down to the Tories or free markets is so ignorant and blinded and does a disservice to the addicted homeless.

So, where have you got this fact from that only 3% of Brits rent privately for more than 10 years? How about this one from the English housing survey 2015 - 2016 (UK Gov):

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/627686/Private_rented_sector_report_2015-16.pdf

"Respondents were asked how long they had lived in the private rented sector in the most recent spell, even if they had lived at different addresses. A quarter of private sector tenants had lived in the private rented sector for less than two years, a quarter for more than two years, but less than five years, quarter for between five and nine years and quarter for 10 years or more.

If a quarter of private renters have lived in private rental for more than 10 years and 1/5th of homes are private rental what does that equal? 1/4th x 1/5th = 1/20th and 1/20th as a percentage is 4% which is very close to the 3% I quoted. My figure was for UK born Brits which own more and rent less than the average population which includes refugees and migrants. So 3-4% love long term in private rentals. Also bear in mind some do so out of choice. I have a friend that has been renting a 1 bedroom flat in zone 1 London for more than 10 years but he also owns a house in the Midlands

The above suggests you are way out on your figures

No it shows for the Nth time I know what I'm talking about and you have no clue how to actually read understand and make sense of stats.

Also, if we further unwrap your thinking, how does you celebrating that people may go into social housing prove affordability?

What you need to do is look at the ratio of long term renters vs owners.
Unless the state sells off the social stock, which it should, the social stock will drag down ownership figures.

Housing is affordable because people can either buy or get put in a council house? Where is the logic there? Wouldn't people rather buy than go into social housing? What about the below 2016 ONS report on housing makes you think that everything is getting more affordable and all is well?

https://visual.ons.gov.uk/uk-perspectives-2016-housing-and-home-ownership-in-the-uk/

Unless the social stock is sold to the public then it will be filled and keep ownership lower than it could be. I suggest just gifting the whole lot to sitting tenants. You see I like the poor becuase I was poor as a kid and my parents were poor until their 30s and my grand parents were very poor for all but the last quarter of their lives. I am happy and willing to transfer the 5.5 million social stock for free to the sitting tennats. Socialist hate that idea because they have people being free they want people nt on the state.

"House prices have been increasing, and first time buyers are finding it more difficult to get on the property ladder – while home ownership among younger age groups generally has declined."

Well yes property prices do increase after the low points in recessions.
This doesn't mean property is unaffordable
In most the country a 3 bed terrace costs less than reinstatement value and a mortgage interest costs much less than social rents. That shows prices are very affordable in most the country eg 3 bed homes I'm Birmingham can be had for £120k. The fact that they could be had for £100k five years ago doesn't mean they are over proved today.
Plus for UK born Brits most of them will inherit housing for free.

We have indeed covered this many times, and you still are unable to present numbers that stand up to any sort of scrutiny. Where have you got the only 3% don't manage to buy within 10 years from? Where backs up your claim that nearly 100% of homeless people are substance abusers?

See above. Your own stays show 1/4th rent privately long term. 1/5th rent. 1/4th x 1/5th = 4% rent long term 96% buy or get social housing. Its a bit better for bits closer to 3% rent long term 97% own or are in social

You think that you have proven things multiple times, but most people on these forums are either laughing at you or have given up trying to engage. I have presented some figures / articles above refuting a lot of your claims. Can you do likewise, or are you going to continue with your ignorance

Clear those credit card debts before you start preaching your second to none intellect and life experience

gfplux

kabayiri wrote: »

I vote for *any* party which moves the political seat of power further North than some tiny Southern corner of the British Isles.

I don't know any other way we are going to address the serious imbalances which will affect not just economic well being, but life spans.

There are 2 economies in the UK : the economy of London and the economy of the rest. We seem to think they should align. They are getting further apart I reckon.

You put it perfectly.
It needs a determined long term plan to fix it. Various Governments have paid lip service to the idea while plowing money and effort into quite the opposite.
I suspect that a London based British Government will always be London/South East Centric.
I don’t blame them except for pretending they don’t want it that way.
Perhaps Brexit will surprise me and those who voted to leave the EU will be rewarded by increased economic activity and higher wages outside of the South East.

Herzlos

Moby wrote: »

You say I'm 'lying' but acknowledge yourself that you see 'a lot of difficult lives due to dysfunction'. Then you acknowledge 'poverty' because I see it....it's just that I willingly omit the dysfunctional issues behind it ??? I have no idea what you are talking about mate and I don't think you do either!

I think he's convinced himself that all poverty is somehow self inflicted via disfunction, thus helping them is pointless and thus he can justify not wanting to help.

He sort of has a point; some people are in poverty due to some sort of disfunction like a gambling addiction, and giving them money is a waste of time. Funding treatment is a different matter.

gfplux

GreatApe wrote: »

The homeless topic is too political to get unbiased responses.
There are many reasons to lie to pretend drug use is low by the homeless to make it look like homeless people are homeless just because of bad luck and the Tories.
The truth is almost all of them are addicts I say this as I have members of my family who are police officers and deal with them. Why would they lie. I suspect the figures that show 'only' 39% are on drugs use figures for people who are not actually homeless eg people in short term b&bs

'Four out of five homeless people in Britain are regular drug-users - and almost half have used heroin or crack in the last month. The figures, far higher than previously acknowledged, have shocked homelessness experts.'

Even the lefty guardian has a piece on homelessness in Manchester saying 'Researchers estimate that 90-95% of homeless people in Manchester smoke the drug' in regards to the drug spice

You are a blind fool if you believe only 29% of the homeless are on drugs.
Accept the truth that it is almost all of them addicted to drugs and or alcohol and then deal with the problem. Pretending it's all down to the Tories or free markets is so ignorant and blinded and does a disservice to the addicted homeless.





If a quarter of private renters have lived in private rental for more than 10 years and 1/5th of homes are private rental what does that equal? 1/4th x 1/5th = 1/20th and 1/20th as a percentage is 4% which is very close to the 3% I quoted. My figure was for UK born Brits which own more and rent less than the average population which includes refugees and migrants. So 3-4% love long term in private rentals. Also bear in mind some do so out of choice. I have a friend that has been renting a 1 bedroom flat in zone 1 London for more than 10 years but he also owns a house in the Midlands



No it shows for the Nth time I know what I'm talking about and you have no clue how to actually read understand and make sense of stats.



What you need to do is look at the ratio of long term renters vs owners.
Unless the state sells off the social stock, which it should, the social stock will drag down ownership figures.



Unless the social stock is sold to the public then it will be filled and keep ownership lower than it could be. I suggest just gifting the whole lot to sitting tenants. You see I like the poor becuase I was poor as a kid and my parents were poor until their 30s and my grand parents were very poor for all but the last quarter of their lives. I am happy and willing to transfer the 5.5 million social stock for free to the sitting tennats. Socialist hate that idea because they have people being free they want people nt on the state.


Well yes property prices do increase after the low points in recessions.
This doesn't mean property is unaffordable
In most the country a 3 bed terrace costs less than reinstatement value and a mortgage interest costs much less than social rents. That shows prices are very affordable in most the country eg 3 bed homes I'm Birmingham can be had for £120k. The fact that they could be had for £100k five years ago doesn't mean they are over proved today.
Plus for UK born Brits most of them will inherit housing for free.



See above. Your own stays show 1/4th rent privately long term. 1/5th rent. 1/4th x 1/5th = 4% rent long term 96% buy or get social housing. Its a bit better for bits closer to 3% rent long term 97% own or are in social



Clear those credit card debts before you start preaching your second to none intellect and life experience

Please, please, please start your own thread and leave this one to concentrate on keeping on topic.

Herzlos

GreatApe wrote: »

People in temporary housing are not homeless.

You understand what temporary accommodation is, right?

Arklight

GreatApe wrote: »

The homeless topic is too political to get unbiased responses.
There are many reasons to lie to pretend drug use is low by the homeless to make it look like homeless people are homeless just because of bad luck and the Tories.
The truth is almost all of them are addicts I say this as I have members of my family who are police officers and deal with them. Why would they lie. I suspect the figures that show 'only' 39% are on drugs use figures for people who are not actually homeless eg people in short term b&bs

'Four out of five homeless people in Britain are regular drug-users - and almost half have used heroin or crack in the last month. The figures, far higher than previously acknowledged, have shocked homelessness experts.'

Even the lefty guardian has a piece on homelessness in Manchester saying 'Researchers estimate that 90-95% of homeless people in Manchester smoke the drug' in regards to the drug spice

You are a blind fool if you believe only 29% of the homeless are on drugs.
Accept the truth that it is almost all of them addicted to drugs and or alcohol and then deal with the problem. Pretending it's all down to the Tories or free markets is so ignorant and blinded and does a disservice to the addicted homeless.





If a quarter of private renters have lived in private rental for more than 10 years and 1/5th of homes are private rental what does that equal? 1/4th x 1/5th = 1/20th and 1/20th as a percentage is 4% which is very close to the 3% I quoted. My figure was for UK born Brits which own more and rent less than the average population which includes refugees and migrants. So 3-4% love long term in private rentals. Also bear in mind some do so out of choice. I have a friend that has been renting a 1 bedroom flat in zone 1 London for more than 10 years but he also owns a house in the Midlands



No it shows for the Nth time I know what I'm talking about and you have no clue how to actually read understand and make sense of stats.



What you need to do is look at the ratio of long term renters vs owners.
Unless the state sells off the social stock, which it should, the social stock will drag down ownership figures.



Unless the social stock is sold to the public then it will be filled and keep ownership lower than it could be. I suggest just gifting the whole lot to sitting tenants. You see I like the poor becuase I was poor as a kid and my parents were poor until their 30s and my grand parents were very poor for all but the last quarter of their lives. I am happy and willing to transfer the 5.5 million social stock for free to the sitting tennats. Socialist hate that idea because they have people being free they want people nt on the state.


Well yes property prices do increase after the low points in recessions.
This doesn't mean property is unaffordable
In most the country a 3 bed terrace costs less than reinstatement value and a mortgage interest costs much less than social rents. That shows prices are very affordable in most the country eg 3 bed homes I'm Birmingham can be had for £120k. The fact that they could be had for £100k five years ago doesn't mean they are over proved today.
Plus for UK born Brits most of them will inherit housing for free.



See above. Your own stays show 1/4th rent privately long term. 1/5th rent. 1/4th x 1/5th = 4% rent long term 96% buy or get social housing. Its a bit better for bits closer to 3% rent long term 97% own or are in social



Clear those credit card debts before you start preaching your second to none intellect and life experience

Look up Rightmove and check what the average price of a 1 bed flat is to buy and rent for your locality. Then look at a local jobs site and check what an average salary is for an average job.

Then having acquired these facts sit down and have a think, for once, about the facts you have learned about salaries, and prices, and come back here and explain how someone on an average salary, in your area, can afford to privately rent and save a deposit to buy, without help from elsewhere.

Your comments on the homeless are ignorant.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Can we get this thread back on topic please.

Plenty of other threads for bickering about homelessness and house prices.