The Labour Government

[Mr Kobayashi]

I think you envy people's wealth. Price increases in rent are driven by a lack of housing. Or empty homes, second homes. Not landlords renting properties.

So if landlords A puts a property on the market for X amount and is able to get a tenant in at that amount, it has no effect on Landlord B when he takes a look and sees he can get the same and puts his prices up accordingly?

If I envied them wouldn't I want to copy them?

I regard many BTL landlords as pathetic and vacuous. Spend your money enjoy it. Create a real business. Even setting up an Airbnb is a more worthwhile pursuit than landlordism.

 

[Quad]

So if landlords A puts a property on the market for X amount and is able to get a tenant in at that amount, it has no effect on Landlord B when he takes a look and sees he can get the same and puts his prices up accordingly?

If I envied them wouldn't I want to copy them?

I regard many BTL landlords as pathetic and vacuous. Spend your money enjoy it. Create a real business. Even setting up an Airbnb is a more worthwhile pursuit than landlordism.

Has a landlord treated you badly in the past is that why you hate them

 

[Quad]

So if landlords A puts a property on the market for X amount and is able to get a tenant in at that amount, it has no effect on Landlord B when he takes a look and sees he can get the same and puts his prices up accordingly?

If I envied them wouldn't I want to copy them?

I regard many BTL landlords as pathetic and vacuous. Spend your money enjoy it. Create a real business. Even setting up an Airbnb is a more worthwhile pursuit than landlordism.

I know you won’t give your background away

But what have you invested in ? And how did you go about it as I’m all about learning

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Has a landlord treated you badly in the past is that why you hate them

I don't hate them, I just regard them as pathetic. It's a lazy and unimaginative way to make money and it causes social problems.

I do hate NIMBYs.

 

[hammocity]

PIP “rental allowance” you say?
Tell me more.
I’ve been a DLA/PIP adviser for nearly thirty years and I’ve never heard of it.

Good for you, well done, I don't have your extensive knowledge of welfare benefits but you're being disingenuous if you don't accept some claimants can get Universal Payments paid direct to them and are responsible to pay Landlords which many didn't.

I'm not surprised your's an adviser in this field, you abuse a lot of posters on here who have a different opinion, you think you're a smart arse but I'm not buying it, bet you're a right barrel of laughs.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

I know you won’t give your background away

But what have you invested in ? And how did you go about it as I’m all about learning

Besides my workplace pension I don't have any investments.

I've made some modest sales through a hobby but I was running at break even at best but I knew that when I started it.

 

[mexico1970]

Good for you, well done, I don't have your extensive knowledge of welfare benefits but you're being disingenuous if you don't accept some claimants can get Universal Payments paid direct to them and are responsible to pay Landlords which many didn't.

I'm not surprised your an adviser in this field, you abuse a lot of posters on here who have a different opinion, you think you're a smart arse but I'm not buying it, bet you're a right barrel of laughs.

Can you send that to him in triplicate please?

 

[Scottyboi]

Good for you, well done, I don't have your extensive knowledge of welfare benefits but you're being disingenuous if you don't accept some claimants can get Universal Payments paid direct to them and are responsible to pay Landlords which many didn't.

I'm not surprised your an adviser in this field, you abuse a lot of posters on here who have a different opinion, you think you're a smart arse but I'm not buying it, bet you're a right barrel of laughs.

PIP has nothing to do with benefits that help with rent though, it's a disability payment and completely irrelevant to the point you was making.

 

[mexico1970]

PIP has nothing to do with benefits that help with rent though, it's a disability payment and completely irrelevant to the point you was making.

Fuck me he's got the PL legal team on the case for him :)

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Good for you, well done, I don't have your extensive knowledge of welfare benefits but you're being disingenuous if you don't accept some claimants can get Universal Payments paid direct to them and are responsible to pay Landlords which many didn't.

I'm not surprised your an adviser in this field, you abuse a lot of posters on here who have a different opinion, you think you're a smart arse but I'm not buying it, bet you're a right barrel of laughs.

Most claimants get universal credit paid to them. In most places the housing element of UC isn't enough to pay the rent without topping it up with the money from their remaining benefits.

So makes sense to make one combined payment.

When universal credit can be paid direct to a landlord - Shelter England

Your universal credit (UC) housing element could be paid direct to your landlord if you have missed rent payments or find it hard to budget.

england.shelter.org.uk

Universal Credit: Landlord request for a managed payment or rent arrears deduction

If a tenant is having difficulty paying their rent, apply for a Managed Payment to Landlord using the Apply for a Direct Rent Payment service to request payment of rent from a tenant’s Universal Credit.

www.gov.uk

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Fuck me he's got the PL legal team on the case for him :)

Are you not eligible for PIP yourself? Or your spouse for carer's allowance?

 

[hammocity]

I’m pretty high up in the org I’m in now and it’s actually made me more angry over time despite me earning more myself! The amount both in pension contributions and additional bonus payments the upper levels get is ridiculous, it’s no wonder the disparity of wealth is growing so much. It’s just not justifiable at all to me what I’m able to pay some people that work for me compared to what they get, there is no where near the difference in value that there is in salary.

You work for an Organisation but still say "I'm able to pay some people that work for me"? How proprietoral is that?

I've been a Senior Manager in my time and ran my business for 10 years before I retired, I never once described anyone as "worked for me" they were colleagues, simple as, describing someone as working for you is utterly demeaning and insulting, you've got likes off some "Socialists" on here, absolutely baffling.

 

[Postman Pep]

Maybe a thread on landlords is in order .... it's like turning on the tele and seeing Ashworth is on again

 

[metalblue]

All this springs from two factors:

a) The decline in pension provision. Even the much-vaunted public sector pensions are shit compared to what they used to be. Unlike most European countries, the state pension is set at a low level, with low contributions. Finally, the private pension industry has managed to destroy confidence in it. This needs sorting out. I would go for European-style state pensions, with the recognition that this means higher NI and that it would apply to upcoming generations, not those who have not paid for it.

b) The deliberate privatisation of rental housing started by Thatcher's right-to-buy policy and her obsessive hatred of councils and council housing. (Municipal socialism.) This led to more and more people being forced into the private rental sector, which in turn led to a surge in demand, making rental properties a more attractive investment.

I don't blame landlords, although I agree a minority of them are exploitative and care nothing for tenant welfare. They are just exploiting an economic opportunity brought about by government policy, or lack of it. I blame politicians for fucking up pensions and failing to sort out housing. The latter being a consequence of leaving this vital provision largely to market forces.

In the UK we are too hung up on seeing houses as a profitable investment instead of as homes. No one delights when food shoots up 15% in a year, but when that happens to house prices people fucking celebrate.

The problem with comparing UK to other countries is you have to compare it all. We choose the NHS as our big spend, with the UK government spending about £1000 per person more per year than every other European government (as we have different funding models).

 

[BrianW]

The problem with comparing UK to other countries is you have to compare it all. We choose the NHS as our big spend, with the UK government spending about £1000 per person more per year than every other European government (as we have different funding models).

Mmm, but most spend more of their GDP on health than we do. (USA spends twice the percentage of GDP.)

So if the governments are paying less the punters must be paying more, either through insurance or direct payment. I see no great utility in making insurance companies richer to provide healthcare. Why not just cut out the middleman? (I know from the experience of American friends that insurance companies are often swindling bastards who do their utmost to find an excuse not to pay out.)

The converse is that we are 'supposed' to make private provision for retirement to supplement the abysmal state pension, which is really only enough for spending money, not to support you.

But many don't, won't or can't. So they end up complaining they are living on a pittance (which they are) or in some cases, where the figures enable to computer to say 'yes', they draw benefits we all pay for via taxation, but that not everyone can claim. In my view, this is highly unsatisfactory for all concerned. However, there is nothing that can be done for present pensioners.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

PIP has nothing to do with benefits that help with rent though, it's a disability payment and completely irrelevant to the point you was making.

And also completely unrelated to the needs of the claimant ... a fixed payment

 

[metalblue]

Mmm, but most spend more of their GDP on health than we do. (USA spends twice the percentage of GDP.)

So if the governments are paying less the punters must be paying more, either through insurance or direct payment. I see no great utility in making insurance companies richer to provide healthcare. Why not just cut out the middleman? (I know from the experience of American friends that insurance companies are often swindling bastards who do their utmost to find an excuse not to pay out.)

The converse is that we are 'supposed' to make private provision for retirement to supplement the abysmal state pension, which is really only enough for spending money, not to support you.

But many don't, won't or can't. So they end up complaining they are living on a pittance (which they are) or in some cases, where the figures enable to computer to say 'yes', they draw benefits we all pay for via taxation, but that not everyone can claim. In my view, this is highly unsatisfactory for all concerned. However, there is nothing that can be done for present pensioners.

It is a combination of state and insurance funding. The insurance element is fairly highly regulated in other European countries but there maybe an element of copay followed by reimbursement. The problem is the majority of the UK public won’t countenance any change to healthcare funding even if it’s still free at point of delivery and neither Labour nor Tory will risk any change due to the optics.

I lived in the US for a while and it’s a bonkers system. Mrs MB had to have an MRI which the insurance company approved but in the next breath said they might change their mind after the scan and then I’ll be liable for $10k!!! Almost like they wanted to put us off. Miss MB broke her ankle while we lived there and that cost us $1500 up front which the insurance company eventually reimbursed- it’s not a system I’d like to see replicated anywhere else.

 

[meltonblue]

You work for an Organisation but still say "I'm able to pay some people that work for me"? How proprietoral is that?

I've been a Senior Manager in my time and ran my business for 10 years before I retired, I never once described anyone as "worked for me" they were colleagues, simple as, describing someone as working for you is utterly demeaning and insulting, you've got likes off some "Socialists" on here, absolutely baffling.

Well that’s more on you and how you chose to read it to be fair. I was making the point of the different levels between those on a grade higher than me, myself and then those on a grade lower. I said they “worked for me” in the context of I feel personally responsible for them and them feeling rewarded as well as enjoying what they do as a personal accountability, however I’m constrained by the same company rules everyone else is.

I consider them all my colleagues and actually primarily friends, neither of which apply as much as to how I feel about those in the director or exec level roles.

Regardless of that, it’s only demeaning and insulting depending on the context. There’s numerous times a week where I have to say “I work for x” or “x works for me”. It’s only baffling when you attempt to project an ulterior motivation for doing it like you’ve done there, which I find even more baffling than attempting to check the motivation before doing so.

 

[Vic]

Hu

‘Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.’ Winston Churchill 1948.
Absolutely bang on the money.

One of his shittier quotes.

Better, "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. In the present case, where an overwhelming majority of Service men and women would gain the blessings, can we not unite on the broad democratic principle of 'the greatest good of the greatest number'?

 

[inbetween]

It is a combination of state and insurance funding. The insurance element is fairly highly regulated in other European countries but there maybe an element of copay followed by reimbursement. The problem is the majority of the UK public won’t countenance any change to healthcare funding even if it’s still free at point of delivery and neither Labour nor Tory will risk any change due to the optics.

I lived in the US for a while and it’s a bonkers system. Mrs MB had to have an MRI which the insurance company approved but in the next breath said they might change their mind after the scan and then I’ll be liable for $10k!!! Almost like they wanted to put us off. Miss MB broke her ankle while we lived there and that cost us $1500 up front which the insurance company eventually reimbursed- it’s not a system I’d like to see replicated anywhere else.

The whole 'free at the point of use' thing is really a load of tosh. We all pay tax and we all pay NI and that means you're paying for the NHS regardless of whether you even use it, there is no such thing as free at the point of use. If I drive my car tomorrow then it's free at the point of use but I still have to buy the bugger in the first place.

The only acceptable thing is to examine the return that we get for what we do pay and the quality of that return has only worsened over the last 20 years. Evidentially the system is underfunded and the quality has worsened as a result. Therefore the only acceptable solution is to increase funding and make people accountable for that spend.

One thing that is always missed though is the fact that our taxes have been cut alongside those years of successive underfunding. If we want good healthcare then we need to wean ourselves off low taxes and we need to accept the second relaity which is the rich aren't going to fulfil the shortfall.

It's just really simple, you get what you pay for and we pay very little so we get very little. If we want a better NHS then a general taxation increase that puts us on par with European funding levels is the only possible solution.