Work or be homeless!

Generali

clutton wrote: »

""
Quote:
Originally Posted by clutton
so if no one paid any mortgage or rent - where would we all find these "free" houses to live in - and even if they were "free" where would the funds come from to maintain them ?

You could PAY someone to BUILD you a house. You could do it now. The problem is you need to BUY some LAND from someone else first. This isn't about bricks and mortar... it's about land.

Quote:
Originally Posted by clutton
""If you don't pay your rent/mortgage you will be thrown out into the street where you will freeze to death."" - you do like to play the drama queen Squatnow - no one freezes to death in this country anymore - there are charitable hostels to help folks in such dire need

In those cases, while you are not paying rent/mortgage, someone else is doing it for you... the taxpayer. Just because you arn't paying it doesn't mean it isn't being paid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by clutton
"Failure to pay mortgage/rent is a criminal offence" - no its not - its a civil matter - repo cases and heard in the local county court - not the magistrates courts.

Failure to pay isn't in itself an offense, but if you don't pay you become homeless, which is an offense.


"""
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorgeous George
You can replace drug dealer with any other commodity supplier.

You fail to see the point here... landlords/land speculators don't supply a comodity... the land was always there. All they are doing is demanding money for someone to use something they didn't create.

The difference is that drugs are NOT a finite resource. Land IS. you CANNOT create some more land.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorgeous George
The point is that your argument is mathematically flawed. Some people spend less than 1% of their income on property, others may spend 90%.

Even if you own your own home, you are still paying for land. Everything you buy costs what it does because the person who made it has rent to pay. So once you've paid off your mortgage, the extra money you have left allows you to buy nice things. Making those nice things allows other people to pay their rent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorgeous George
I choose to spend a sixth of my take-home pay on holidays but that doesn't mean that 95% of all money is spent on holidays.

Alsmot all of that 1/6th will go towards land. The waiters have rent to pay, the hotel has rent to pay.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorgeous George
If I'm a muppet, I'd like to be Gonzo.

I'de rather be a fraggle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Generali
You're trying to prove your point using fictitious figures! That's not a proof. It's imaginative I grant you but certainly not proof!

I stand by what I said,a non-argument which you have no evidence whatsoever to back it up. And that's not an random insult, it's a carefully thought out insult.

I don't have to provide "evidence" as it is so blindingly obvious that it is almost breathtaking that you are too brainwashed to understand the concept.

You have been convinced that you purpose in life should be to buy/rent a house, but you never stop to ask where all the money goes and WHY.

If you had an open mind and stopped to think for a moment it is easy to see that costs incured by one person are passed onto those that employ them through increased wage demands.

If everyone incurs a similar cost, those costs soon rack up and become a drain on the system.

If a law was passed requiring everyone to give £1000 a year to the Queen, then wages would all rise by FAR FAR more than £1000, because the cost of those rises would be passed on in increased prices of goods and services, as the companies would need to charge more to recover the extra wages.

Because the man who washes you car has to pay £1000, he has to charge you more. So you need to ask your boss for a rise big enough to cover you £1000 plus the extra money your car washer is charging.

How can you not understand this blindingly simply concept... I mean it's the very basis of how our economy works!""



===================================================

does ANYONE have ANY idea what Squatnow means - or is it just that i have had a long day ????

i mean how will ordinary folk get the money to build a house for goodess sakes ?

seriously, he clearly has such passionate views, that i would really be interested if there is ANYone else who could try to explain what he getting at - i just dont get it - i really don't.

To me they seem to be a series of wild claims based on 2 fundamental tenets:

Private ownership of land is immoral;
Anyone that disagrees with any statement regardless of how little rigour there is behind it is an idiot or worse.

I don't think you're missing any deep point here old thing, these are just a bunch of ramblings based around a vague theme. It's like an advanced form of trolling without the charm.

It's rather like saying you're missing the point when a drunk starts screaming something about the Rothschilds or whatever from a doorway in a London street: you know he's trying to make a point but you're never going to work out what it is so you address it point by point.

No I haven't got any money.

Yes you can have a light.

No I don't want you tae jib me.

Etc.

SquatNow

Generali wrote: »

To me they seem to be a series of wild claims based on 2 fundamental tenets:

Private ownership of land is immoral;
Anyone that disagrees with any statement regardless of how little rigour there is behind it is an idiot or worse.

I don't think you're missing any deep point here old thing, these are just a bunch of ramblings based around a vague theme. It's like an advanced form of trolling without the charm.

It's rather like saying you're missing the point when a drunk starts screaming something about the Rothschilds or whatever from a doorway in a London street: you know he's trying to make a point but you're never going to work out what it is so you address it point by point.

No I haven't got any money.

Yes you can have a light.

No I don't want you tae jib me.

Etc.

AGAIN - you can't discuss the topic so you make up a random set of insults.

My statements arn't ramblings they are quite well constructed.

Just because you don't understand something it doesn't make it wrong.

I don't understand what Quarks are, it doesn't mean Stephen Hawking is nuts.

I have no objection to the private ownership of land, but for it to be possible to have private ownership of land without it being abused, you need land taxation.

Otherwise eventually a small number of people will end up owning all the land and everyone else will owe them their lifes achievements.

I'm not saying anything outlandish, everything I've said is in the public domain and has been said many times before, by many, many, inteligent people... it's just no-one wants to listen as they are too busy checking rightmove to see how much more their house is worth than last week.

Generali

SquatNow wrote: »

AGAIN - you can't discuss the topic so you make up a random set of insults.

My statements arn't ramblings they are quite well constructed.

Just because you don't understand something it doesn't make it wrong.

I don't understand what Quarks are, it doesn't mean Stephen Hawking is nuts.

I have no objection to the private ownership of land, but for it to be possible to have private ownership of land without it being abused, you need land taxation.

Otherwise eventually a small number of people will end up owning all the land and everyone else will owe them their lifes achievements.

I'm not saying anything outlandish, everything I've said is in the public domain and has been said many times before, by many, many, inteligent people... it's just no-one wants to listen as they are too busy checking rightmove to see how much more their house is worth than last week.

I give up. Have fun. I've tried addressing some of your points but you won't stand up to reasoned argument you just go off with another unsupported factoid.

Zebedee69

Squatnow is a muppet

SquatNow

Generali wrote: »

I give up. Have fun. I've tried addressing some of your points but you won't stand up to reasoned argument you just go off with another unsupported factoid.

And don't try and act all condecending... you have made NO ATTEMPT to address my points you've just rubbished my posts and posted random insults.

I've make clear conscise points and responded in detail to people comments, and all you ever do is insult people!

Zebedee69

Squatnow is a muppet

SquatNow

clutton wrote: »

does ANYONE have ANY idea what Squatnow means - or is it just that i have had a long day ????

i mean how will ordinary folk get the money to build a house for goodess sakes ?

seriously, he clearly has such passionate views, that i would really be interested if there is ANYone else who could try to explain what he getting at - i just dont get it - i really don't.

People can always borrow money to buy houses... my concern, and what I'm trying to make people aware of, is the way the land system has been abused to make a small number of people VERY VERY rich.

It IS very hard to understand unless you go through step-by-step like I did in my example of the nurse being paid and where the money goes... almost all of it ends up in the pockets of landlords, but no-one can explain what the landlords is actually ADDING to the system... their appear to only be receiving.

The example is inarguable - that is, it is clearly a fair representation of how our economy works. yes the exact amounts my vary, but that *IS* how it works. The reason people struggle to understand what I'm getting at is partly that the concept of what I'm describing, when they see it, is so ludicrous that they cannot beleive it to be true... yet it is.

Basically: People earn money to live and to have a nice life, but almost all the money they earn ends up in the pockets of land speculators, who become unimaginably wealthy.

The biggest thing that makes it hard to believe is that to accept that you work your entire life and end up with nothing to show for it while someone else gets rich thanks to your hard work is simply soul destroying.

Zebedee69 wrote: »

Squatnow is a muppet

Mods - I don't think this sort of thing is appropriate.

clutton_2

""Mods - I don't think this sort of thing is appropriate." - neither do i - i might not agree with Squatnow but he is entitled to the respect MSEer normally give each other when disagreeing.


"what the landlords is actually ADDING to the system..."

Squatnow - what i feel i ADD to the system is a service, (which used to be provided by local government) ie - i risk my capital to buy a property to provide a home for someone who (up to the Right to Buy) would have been able to easily rent from the council. I make a small return each month - (you would not believe me if i told you the average "profit" on a two-up two down in this current market - and no i am not complaining.)

If private landlords such as myself did not own property and rent it out to struggling folks - who would ?

You may not like my breed - but i do provide a good service to my customers, and am proud of that fact. MAny of my tenants have been with me for years - they do not want the responsibility of home-ownership and several have investigated the figures to compare mortgages with rent. Not everyone is emotionally able to take on that financial risk.

VFR-Rider

SquatNow wrote: »

The difference is that drugs are NOT a finite resource. Land IS. you CANNOT create some more land.

News to me....

I feel I strongly disagree with your view on life... it seems to me that you believe some people should get something for nothing...

However I do think it's wrong for people to openly call you a muppet. This forum should be for impersonal debate, last thing we need is more keyboard warriors...

chris83_2

SquatNow wrote: »

I'm not arguing that people should refuse to pay rent, or at least, not yet. What I'm saying is this: Where the F*** is all the money GOING. 95% of all money is going to people as a reward for doing nothing more than buying land.

If you look back far enough to where money has been or look forward enough to see where it is spent all of the money will eventually pass through every sort of commodity/land/food etc. I'm not saying you are wrong (because i admit the money will eventually go through land, and equally it will all eventually go through something like petrol), but i do struggle to comprehend what relevance this really has.

SquatNow wrote: »

Do you have ANY concept of economics? Zimbabwe has high inflation because the government collects little or no tax and instead print new currency to pay state workers. It is NOTHING to do with rent.

Not paying rent wouldn't increase the amount of money in existence, it would just stop it all flowing into one huge pile under a landlords bed.

I don't disagree with you on how zimbabwe ended up with high inflation and i wasn't trying to compare the situations within both countries, i was merely comparing the rates of inflation both countries could end up having if peeps in the UK stopped paying rent/mortgages (I say "could" because the true extent of what would happen is difficult to predict, i certainly don't have the tools anyway).

SquatNow wrote: »

You're crap at economics too if it makes you feel any better.

I'm crap at writing (due to my dyslexia), which makes it difficult to get my point across (I reread my posts and i usually find it has little to do with the original point i was trying to make :rolleyes: ), but i do i understand economics fairly well, considering i studied it and firsted in it at uni. Thanks for insulting me though.