A Question for Tory Supporters

Green_Bear

Thrugelmir wrote: »

I'm not a second homeowner. Therefore have no vested interest. However forcing BTL landlords to sell at to their tenants at at a fixed rate discount is going to alienate a lot of the population. Particularly as it forms part of their retirement planning.

Makes you wonder what other half baked ideas are in the pipeline.

I'm not sure about this.
A lot of people I know own their own house outright, but no other properties.
They resent the fact their offspring can't afford to buy a house and blame BTL landlords for this.
These homeowners now feel obliged to give their offspring money to buy a house.

The result is a lot of 'natural Tories' (ie homeowners) are now anti BTL landlords.

Green_Bear

The real issue that's going to hit the Conservative Party is money. They have already missed rental payment on some of their party HQ buildings.

The party is mostly funded by big business and these businesses are really, really, not happy about Brexit.
I heard at one recent shareholder AGM, some shareholders started asking the directors to stop donations and ask for a refund. The directors had to placate them with warnings about Corbyn.

The problem is the Conservative membership (and voters) are more pro-Brexit. But these members don't donate enough money.

So the Tories are stuck between being a skint Blue-Kip or a well funded Official Opposition party....

Green_Bear

Cakeguts wrote: »

Most of the people who claim to be single parents actually aren't. The only people who are actually single parents are where one of the couple has died. All the others are not single parents. The fact that the people have made a bad choice by deciding to have a child with the wrong person cannot be blamed on anyone else except themselves.

If people took personal responsibility for paying for the children that they choose to have and not having more than they can afford the lives of many children would be much better.

No. That's called being widowed. The surviving spouse is termed a widow or a widower.

Green_Bear

Cakeguts wrote: »

Most of the people who claim to be single parents actually aren't.

There is no difference between someone evading tax and someone not paying maintenance for their child. Both of these actions mean other people have to make up the difference. If people took personal responsibility for paying for the children that they choose to have and not having more than they can afford the lives of many children would be much better.

No. That's not correct any more.
Single parents are now entitled to keep all maintenance payments - without any effect on benefits. So it makes no difference to the taxpayer how much maintenance is paid.

Green_Bear

Kentish_Dave wrote: »

You’ve got that !!!! about face.

The Conservatives don’t want my money, but Labour supporters do. Why should the government take more of my wage than they currently do, and give it to others?

The Conservative Party is funded by businesses, who would otherwise pay out that money in either wages or dividends. So yes, they do take money from the public - in a quite underhand way.

Labour is funded by trade union members, who voluntarily join a union and pay subscriptions.

worried_jim

babyblade41 wrote: »

Prime example .. Female has a child at 21 with someone who doesn't work and has a habit of rolling spliffs very adeptly.. Female gives up work (only worked for 12 months)and now has a 2 bed ground floor flat with a small garden.
Moans like !!!!!!y that said partner is useless and wants to leave him and go and live with mother in her council house who also has 3 of her own children. (mother has a total of 5)

Female changes her mind and stays with low life who has gone to the GP's declaring he is unfit for work due to depression

Lo and behold female is pregnant with another child , neither of them have paid anything to the cost of these kids ,

I would much rather their flat went to an OAP who has worked but never managed to have their own place for one reason or another and are stuck in some high rise crap hole because these lazy beggars spend more time on their back than finding a job

..and some Labour person thinks it's OK to take off me and others to distribute the wealth to these people??? are you having a giraffe

Food banks...don't even get me started on these

I suspect you could name names with this. I hear you.

Thrugelmir

Green_Bear wrote: »

Labour is funded by trade union members, who voluntarily join a union and pay subscriptions.

Maybe used to be. Not these days.

sevenhills

Kentish_Dave wrote: »

I’ll vote for them for as long as I believe that they are the best choice for the country.
While McDonnell and Milne are leaders of HM Opposition it’s hard to imagine the conservatives ever being the worse choice.

Having a 'liar' as head of state is a big deal for me. All the parties will mess something up, they take that in turns, the Tories screw the public sector, with their privatise this and that or they cannot afford the pay review bodies recommendations, unless its MPs pay. Labour do the opposite.

Green_Bear

babyblade41 wrote: »

Prime example .. Female has a child at 21 with someone who doesn't work and has a habit of rolling spliffs very adeptly.. Female gives up work (only worked for 12 months)and now has a 2 bed ground floor flat with a small garden.
Moans like !!!!!!y that said partner is useless and wants to leave him and go and live with mother in her council house who also has 3 of her own children. (mother has a total of 5)

Female changes her mind and stays with low life who has gone to the GP's declaring he is unfit for work due to depression

Lo and behold female is pregnant with another child , neither of them have paid anything to the cost of these kids ,

I would much rather their flat went to an OAP who has worked but never managed to have their own place for one reason or another and are stuck in some high rise crap hole because these lazy beggars spend more time on their back than finding a job

..and some Labour person thinks it's OK to take off me and others to distribute the wealth to these people??? are you having a giraffe

Food banks...don't even get me started on these

You're mixing up a few different issues there.

Firstly, wealth redistribution would probably also benefit the pensioner in the high rise flat.

The money would be taken from the rich and given to both the young couple and the pensioner.
It wouldn't be taken from the pensioner and given to the young couple.

Cakeguts

Green_Bear wrote: »

No. That's not correct any more.
Single parents are now entitled to keep all maintenance payments - without any effect on benefits. So it makes no difference to the taxpayer how much maintenance is paid.

And if there are 5 children and no maintenance is being paid and the mother doesn't work? Who pays for that?