Will there really be a crash?

Herzlos

GreatApe wrote: »

Why do we need to subsidise millionaires and large corporations with min wage staff to clean their offices and make their sandwiches?

What do you think would happen?

Because if we don't, the poor will just have to travel further, or share with more people and have even less take-home money. Do you honestly think that pricing the poorer out of London will push up wages for the lowest paid?


Ideally we shouldn't be subsidizing the businesses and let market forces deal with it, but I'm not sure how likely it is that that would happen without the poor being exploited by it.

MobileSaver

Herzlos wrote: »

the permanently unemployed ... are as entitled to live in the city as anyone else.

Huh?!?! Why should anyone be entitled to live in one of the most expensive parts of the UK?!?

Why stop there? Should they be entitled to drive expensive cars at the taxpayer's expense too? Entitled to eat at Michelin star restaurants at the taxpayer's expense?

Herzlos

MobileSaver wrote: »

Huh?!?! Why should anyone be entitled to live in one of the most expensive parts of the UK?!?

Why stop there? Should they be entitled to drive expensive cars at the taxpayer's expense too? Entitled to eat at Michelin star restaurants at the taxpayer's expense?

I said "as entitled". They've no inherent right to be there (beyond it being their home for potentially decades), and no-one has the right to kick them out because they want it. If they can afford to stay there (subsidised or not) then why not let them stay?

I'd be all for giving them an offer to move somewhere cheaper but in a purely carrot approach rather than stick.

lisyloo

They've no inherent right to be there

Isn't there a good reason for having certain key workers - firemen, policemen, armed police, A&E nurses, doctors etc.in reasonably close proxmity?

MobileSaver

Herzlos wrote: »

They've no inherent right to be there (beyond it being their home for potentially decades)

Agreed however "being their home for potentially decades" shouldn't give any more entitlement to someone permanently unemployed than it does to someone born with a silver spoon in their mouth who may have to sell when faced with crippling inheritance tax.

Herzlos wrote: »

If they can afford to stay there (subsidised or not) then why not let them stay?

Agreed but it's ludicrous for subsidies to continue rising to allow the permanently unemployed to continue living in the most expensive part of the UK and so by default they can no longer afford to stay there.

MobileSaver

lisyloo wrote: »

Isn't there a good reason for having certain key workers - firemen, policemen, armed police, A&E nurses, doctors etc.in reasonably close proxmity?

I'm sure there would be a benefit in certain situations in having key workers living in some of the most expensive parts of the UK but I don't think many tax payers would be happy funding £50,000 annual rents for firemen to be able to live in Mayfair. So yes there's an argument it could be beneficial but that isn't the same as a "good reason" to do it.

GreatApe

lisyloo wrote: »

Isn't there a good reason for having certain key workers - firemen, policemen, armed police, A&E nurses, doctors etc.in reasonably close proxmity?

40% of the workforce of zone 2 are not critical or 'key workers' it makes no sense that zone 2 is more than twice the national average for social housing stock.

The result is millions of poor people (many who do not even work) who are not needed in zone 2 displacing workers onto the trains who then have to go from zone 5-6-7 or even outside of London to zone 1 and back again 250 times a year

Lornapink

Daily Mail is reporting a 14% fall in buy to let lending, but this comes as no surprise to me, it's becoming less and less profitable given tax changes and Landlords generally seen as whipping boys, fit for ever more regulation. If Labour ever get in, the private rental sector will collapse. Before you celebrate, keep in mind a whole section of society cannot obtain a mortgage.

Landlords are turning to alternative arena's, so they'll be ok regardless, lets hope the 'compassionate' amongst us don't start bemoaning ever rising rents as supply diminishes. Oh and if you cap rents btw, supply will fall still more.


Don't you just adore anti-Landlord types that quietly squirrel their own money into managed funds and leave all the dirty work of direct investment to fund managers, and all the while claim they are against the shareholder class, lol.

Herzlos

GreatApe wrote: »

it makes no sense that zone 2 is more than twice the national average for social housing stock.

You're right, we need to double the social housing stock in the rest of the country

Crashy_Time

Lornapink wrote: »

Daily Mail is reporting a 14% fall in buy to let lending, but this comes as no surprise to me, it's becoming less and less profitable given tax changes and Landlords generally seen as whipping boys, fit for ever more regulation. If Labour ever get in, the private rental sector will collapse. Before you celebrate, keep in mind a whole section of society cannot obtain a mortgage.

Landlords are turning to alternative arena's, so they'll be ok regardless, lets hope the 'compassionate' amongst us don't start bemoaning ever rising rents as supply diminishes. Oh and if you cap rents btw, supply will fall still more.


Don't you just adore anti-Landlord types that quietly squirrel their own money into managed funds and leave all the dirty work of direct investment to fund managers, and all the while claim they are against the shareholder class, lol.

Such as,,,?