Right to buy tenant plan to cost LLs £50 Billion

setmefree2

tacpot12 wrote: »

This is only the tip of the iceberg. With Momentum in charge of Labour policies, there will be a wholesale redistribution of wealth from those who have it to those who do not. Whether this is right or fair is a question for the electorate.

Everyone with property should be aware that that Momentum will come knocking for some of that property if Labour are elected.

It's not right or fair, whatever the electorate think.

I started life with nothing much (other than the love of great working class parents - my Dad was a joiner, my Mum worked in a Lever Brothers factory packing soap). Now I'm probably one of the top 1%. Why do Labour get to come and rob me of nearly all of every marginal pound I earn? Without a doubt they will be dipping their hands into my pension too - just like Gordon Brown. And goodness knows what they will do to my shares.

Nevertheless, I won't be voting Tory. I will vote Lib Dem (not that it actually matters that much I live in a safe Labour seat - the Lib Dems would be having a very good night if they won it.)



TBH I'm praying for a hung parliament, if I can't have a Lib Dem win.

setmefree2

Arklight wrote: »

But, but, British property is meant to be a sure fire get rich quick scheme where people who own multiple houses get to trap people who can't afford even one into a lifetime trapped in renting!

How dare this be challenged!? The right of wealthy middle class people to do absolutely nothing while much poorer people pay their mortgages is inalienable. Since William the Conqueror stole the lands of the English commoners and made them rent them back in serfdom this noble tradition has continued!

Yeah, I don't think this would ever make it to legislation, mainly because of how many MPs are buy to let landlords themselves, but it might not do landlords any harm to squirm a bit. A few more properties on the market for families, and out of the hands of wannabe Rachmans wouldn't hurt either.

Not all wealthy middle class people, started life as wealthy middle class people. Some of us worked hard for our money.

So why do Labour get to rob us? Just because some people are bitter that they haven't been able to make any money? Just because some people have a big huge chip on their shoulders?


So in this world, in which anybody who works hard and makes money, has all their money taken off them, what incentive is there to work hard. Why don't we all sit arounds on our backside and wait for handouts?


That's the problem with communism - there is no incentive for any body to do any work. What's the point?

The-Joker

setmefree2 wrote: »

Not all wealthy middle class people, started life as wealthy middle class people. Some of us worked hard for our money.

So why do Labour get to rob us? Just because some people are bitter that they haven't been able to make any money? Just because some people have a big huge chip on their shoulders?


So in this world, in which anybody who works hard and makes money, has all their money taken off them, what incentive is there to work hard. Why don't we all sit arounds on our backside and wait for handouts?


That's the problem with communism - there is no incentive for any body to do any work. What's the point?

You are absolutely right of course but the world is not fair, most people realise this from an early age.


History is replete with examples similar to what labour are planning taking money from the rich and giving to the poor, because the poor have the most votes and will always vote for the one that is better for them, right or wrong or fair doesn’t come into it

Malthusian

The-Joker wrote: »

History is replete with examples similar to what labour are planning taking money from the rich and giving to the poor, because the poor have the most votes and will always vote for the one that is better for them, right or wrong or fair doesn’t come into it

A century-old theory of Lord Salisbury that history has repeatedly debunked.

The poor will vote for a politician promising 10% of a 500g pie over a poltician promising 12% of a 400g pie. They have repeatedly done so in the past, despite left-wing politicians insisting that poor people are stupid and will vote for the politician who promises 12% because 12% is more than 10%.

Naturally sometimes they vote for the 12% guy, which helps keep the democratic merry-go-round spinning, but the idea that they always do is false.

There is a reason why Marxist governments are usually installed via armed uprising rather than democratic vote, and always maintained by force rather than democracy, with no exceptions. If elections were actually about which party promised to spend more of other people's money (Lord Salisbury's theory), if poor people were unable to grasp the drawback of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs, the Socialist Workers Party would win every election. In reality they never win an election unless they cheat.

99% of voters vote to keep what they have right now, with small, cautious tweaks. (The other 1% vote for factions of the Silly Party like the Greens or the Libertarians or the Marxist-Leninists.) Elections in developed countries are a contest between one party that wants the State to control 65% of the economy and one that thinks it should be 66%. And claims the 65% party are alt-right, neo-con, kill-the-poor loonies.

Durban

Apologies , I have not read the whole post but this is my 2 pennies worth:

Corbyn has not got a hope in hell of getting in and the coming election will be the end of him and McDonnell as leaders.

Even if , unbelievably they did, this is not going to happen.

Neither are the renationalisation of key industries.

It's a Marxist pipe dream and one would hope that the British electorate are too intelligent to let it happen

RealElement47

MobileSaver wrote: »

I'm afraid that was exactly what Labour originally proposed to do; they were going to withdraw a tax allowance from landlords and use that to cover the discount so that landlords still got the full amount.

Unfortunately for Corbyn, the Conservatives got there first and have already reduced the tax allowances so the original plan simply won't work any more. Of course Labour have gone very quiet now on an alternative method of funding the discount.

Labour are coming down hard on greedy landlords

lisyloo

RealElement47 wrote: »

Labour are coming down hard on greedy landlords

No they aren’t. They are not in power.

Crashy_Time

Durban wrote: »

Apologies , I have not read the whole post but this is my 2 pennies worth:

Corbyn has not got a hope in hell of getting in and the coming election will be the end of him and McDonnell as leaders.

Even if , unbelievably they did, this is not going to happen.

Neither are the renationalisation of key industries.

It's a Marxist pipe dream and one would hope that the British electorate are too intelligent to let it happen

They were supposedly too intelligent to let Brexit happen? The bash the rich meme has traction IMO, Corbyn might just do it yet.....

lisyloo

Crashy_Time wrote: »

They were supposedly too intelligent to let Brexit happen? The bash the rich meme has traction IMO, Corbyn might just do it yet.....

Your opinion doesn’t match odds or poll trackers by a country mile.
How do you go about distinguishing your desires from reality?
Personally I look at the evidence.

PixelPound

lisyloo wrote: »

Your opinion doesn’t match odds or poll trackers by a country mile.
How do you go about distinguishing your desires from reality?
Personally I look at the evidence.

True if Corbyn couldn't do it in 2017 when the polls were better, then less chance now. This policy like many seems to be a headline grabbing one, unfortunately it may appeal to voters in safe seats, so you could see the vote share go up in those, however in the margianals that they want to win over I'm not sure it will convert many soft Tory voters. Maybe it's the never-voted portion they are hoping to break the habit and vote this time?