1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

How does this make you feel?

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by robfosters, 29 May 2015.

  1. Xordium

    Capodecina

    Joined: 8 Apr 2009

    Posts: 12,702

    You are correct many wouldn't but the overall theory would - allow tennants to treat their abode as a potentially permanent home not a tempory house. That's the underlying problem and the uncertainty associated with that most likely a big driver for mental health problems.
     
  2. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 49,899

    Location: Plymouth

    The family invited criticism and judgment by bringing in the press. I doubt it was picked up on a whim.
     
  3. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 49,899

    Location: Plymouth

    I agree there. The constant feeling that you could be asked to leave gets you in a feeling of not being in control, which is not a nice one.

    The problem is we lack genuine responsibility on both sides for the other parties situation, which in turn means everyone just gets more selfish.
     
  4. amigafan2003

    Capodecina

    Joined: 18 Jan 2008

    Posts: 18,938

    Location: Fylde Coast, Lancashire

    If someone asks you to smash them in the face it doesn't mean you should oblige but yeah, I get your point.
     
  5. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 49,899

    Location: Plymouth

    I guess the question is how do you protect the deluded without impacting their free will. The family is probably completely shocked that anyone could possibly object to their right to do whatever the hell they want and have others pay for it.
     
  6. Housey

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 21 Feb 2006

    Posts: 27,737

    You seemed happy to do that when the news was in their corner however, right?
     
  7. Housey

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 21 Feb 2006

    Posts: 27,737

    There are problems at both ends of the scale and both ends look at the other end when they get caught out. Cheating bankers and tax dodgers to benefit scroungers and life long jobless. People also seem unwilling to accept that both problems are huge, one from the number of people with the above mindset, the other with obscene amounts of wealth at the cost of others in so few hands. I don't think you can use the opposite as a defence for either, both need fixing, but also need to be acknowledged and when I see people defend the dole scrounging end of the spectrum, suggesting its a few people or small community I laugh at their sheer ignorance.

    Spend sometime working inside companies who provide services to the "time rich" and you will be astonished at how they prioritise their lives. I have an issue with both the people who buy because they feel they should have what others who work hard have and the people who service them frankly.
     
  8. Usher

    Mobster

    Joined: 30 Dec 2004

    Posts: 3,362

    Well at least living in two separate houses will hopefully prevent child number 8 from adding to the burden
     
  9. Haggisman

    Capodecina

    Joined: 6 Oct 2004

    Posts: 14,717

    Location: Birmingham

    The problem being that the people who decide the policies (and their cronies) are amongst the people who would watch their profits disappear :(
     
  10. Xordium

    Capodecina

    Joined: 8 Apr 2009

    Posts: 12,702

    I totally agree with you. The problem is and this forum does demonstrate it quite brilliantly at times people will be completely blind to one extreme and not the other. There are so many posters on here who won't accept there is an equality in wealth but feel free to attack the "poor" and likewise there are people who who always have an excuse for families such as these and yet will happily pin all of societies woes on a few privileged people.

    I think at both ends it does come down to greed. I've met many people in my life, very wealthy and very poor people, and it's the aspirational climbers who seem to be unable to differentiate between "need" and "want". We have greedy people who quaff champagne because they feel they've earned it whilst down the road homeless people sleep in doorways - well if they don't have spikes everywhere these days. And we have greedy people who think it's acceptable for society to provide them with everything whilst they do nothing but contribute to the obesity statistics. I do think there is far too much me these days and not enough us. And that personally worries because in thousands of years I would rather hope the us would have figured a way to help humanity get off this rock and grow but I have the feeling we'll just squander what we've been given.
     
  11. Vonhelmet

    Caporegime

    Joined: 28 Jun 2005

    Posts: 48,104

    Location: On the hoods

    Eh?
     
  12. jimmyjimmyo

    Gangster

    Joined: 1 Aug 2006

    Posts: 461

    Why did he not try going back to Asda? the article says he was made redundant shortly after switching jobs so he must of left Asda willingly.

    If it was good enough 6 years ago then it should be good enough now, I never understand the people who say they have been looking for a job for 6 years, He was at Asda for 13 years so go work for Tesco or Waitrose or another supermarket
     
  13. Xordium

    Capodecina

    Joined: 8 Apr 2009

    Posts: 12,702

    Simple. In my experience of meeting many people from rich, and I mean proper rich eg royalty etc, backgrounds they tend to be quite down to earth and comfortable with who and what they are. The ones, who weren't, are always going for that next tier that little bit more but in a rather unhealthy manner. Not only do they attain what they may "need" but they just keep climbing and grabbing for what they "want" under the vain assumption it's what they need.

    Conversely the truly poor I've met tend to have had a degree of acceptance and honesty with that whereas in this country I've met a great deal of "poor" people who display the same inability to differentiate between what they "need" ie food, adequate shelter and what they "want" all manner of foods, the shelter that people who do work get etc.

    Like I said I've met people from all walks of life and from all over this planet and the families where the kids were raised grounded and the backgrounds something you could say well done for were predominately in the actual poor and the actual rich. The families where spoiled little brats seemed endemic were largely the professional benefit abusers and the aspirational climbers of the middle-classes. Both of those groups seem to be possessed by more greed than is the norm and are non the better for it. They are also contributory to a large number of problems we see in society and I find it ironic that it does come back to single classic source: greed. The desire of what one wants in the false assumption assumption that it is what one needs.
     
  14. Tefal

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: 30 Jun 2007

    Posts: 68,082

    Location: Wales

    thats actually one of the most eloquent solutions ive seen to the issue.
     
  15. Housey

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 21 Feb 2006

    Posts: 27,737

    Sounds great, but you miss a couple of fundamental flaws...

    If you let them live there for free, what is their motivation to move? When the children leave school and also fail to find a job or worse, can't be bothered to find one, what do you suggest, build another house and provide it free of charge? Who is going to fund these new houses?

    Whilst there are always people who are doing all they can but not getting the breaks, you need to appreciate that their IS an underclass, a vast amount of people who simply work the system for their benefit. You can't start with a mindset that everyone is the same and entitled to the same standard because it falls down as soon as you realize that everyone is different, different in ability, aptitude, skills, effort, ambition and luck.

    I agree that buying assets is great, but your create a problem if you can never realize value from selling them later down the line, all you do is create an easy mechanism for people who can't be bothered. I am all for controls on rentals and I am all for subsidized housing, for a period of time, to help people who have fallen on hard times. But they are not the problem, it's the people who simply don't want to work and aren't willing to change anything in their lives to make it better for themselves.

    Take those people who moan about the cost of living in London. Here is some advice, move to a place less expensive and rebuild. If it is that much of an inhibitor to your future, make the change, take the hardship of moving from family and friends and rebuild. Many have, but they are doing something about it. It's a mindset, people tend to find reasons not to do things and find a millions reasons why not when you question it.
     
  16. George Hincapie

    Banned

    Joined: 17 Oct 2011

    Posts: 5,707

    Location: Buckingamshire

    Good. I'm quite happy with this personally. They should be grateful they were provided with any accommodation, never mind grumbling because they have to live seperately.

    Don't have children you can't support - it's really not rocket science.
     
  17. Stretch

    Capodecina

    Joined: 14 Feb 2004

    Posts: 13,389

    Location: Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge

    Why would a house costing £180k on the open market, only cost £70k to build new in the same location?

    Also... who's lending them the money to build at 2%, whilst everyone else is paying 4%. How are the councils procuring development sites, and who is doing the builds?
     
    Last edited: 2 Jun 2015
  18. JeditOjanen

    Soldato

    Joined: 7 Feb 2011

    Posts: 6,056

    In answer to your first: it's called the free market. New build houses that were bought for £70,000 15 years ago are now selling for £200,000; do you think those houses were initially sold at a loss?

    To the second: they're the goddamn government. Do you really think banks would refuse to fund the most stable investment imaginable backed by people who can literally print money and in some cases actually own the bank? Development sites are easily acquired when you can make laws legislating against holding undeveloped land for long periods, and even if that doesn't happen I'd factored the cost of buying the plot into the build price. As for who's doing the building - construction firms would be invited to submit a tender, just as they are for every government infrastructure project.

    Restoring "borrow to build" is an ideal solution to the property bubble. It eases the housing crisis; it can be conducted at a rate that won't lead to a collapse in prices so multiple property owners have a chance to divest without getting badly hurt; it creates jobs and reduces the housing benefit tab as a two-way attack on the cost of the welfare state; and in the long term it makes money for the government to provide essential services. Everybody benefits to greater or lesser degree. But as someone said, it does have the drawback that rich people will make slightly less money. And that just wouldn't do, would it?
     
  19. Xordium

    Capodecina

    Joined: 8 Apr 2009

    Posts: 12,702

    :confused:
     
  20. Glaucus

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 11 Mar 2004

    Posts: 76,632

    What, just what.
    You know the price of a house is not the cost of a house to be built.

    And large corporations get far better rates as they are deemed more secure. Governments get some off the best rates.

    You think government pays the same rate as the average person, rofl.

    in fact the entire post is hilarious.
     
    Last edited: 2 Jun 2015