White middleclass Locusts Fuel buy to let boom.
- Thread starter brasicritique
- Start date
Blagsta said:
so let me try to understand your position. Because i start a thread which is titled white middleclass locusts fuel right to let boom I am using a far right trick and trying to divide people along racial lines?
My understanding is that the far right do not critise white middleclass people in which case it is obvious which politcal group you belong to.
Blagsta said:
I am not taking any view i am playing devils advocate
Blagsta said:
I am not disagreeing with this point blagsta
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
@ brassicattack.
Please provide evidence that white people are disproportionately more likely to but to let when they have the money to do so than people of other races.
Otherwise, admit that you were wrong to include a racial element in this thread.
It's the only honourable thing to do.
Please provide evidence that white people are disproportionately more likely to but to let when they have the money to do so than people of other races.
Otherwise, admit that you were wrong to include a racial element in this thread.
It's the only honourable thing to do.
Blagsta said:
no you are turning this into an issue of race or have you forgoten your own posts already?
I am merely critisising white middleclass people and there role in the lack of affordable housing.
still maybe its because your from a white middleclass background and i have touched a raw nerve
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
brasicattack said:no you are turning this into an issue of race or have you forgoten your own posts already?
I am merely critisising white middleclass people and there role in the lack of affordable housing.
still maybe its because your from a white middleclass background and i have touched a raw nerve
You know what? Life's too short to argue with imbeciles like you.
Bye bye.
You have a name littlebabyjesus and you speak of honour
Blagsta said:
More abuse and and a clue as to whether blagsta thinks white middleclass people dominate the housing market
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
^^ Wot he said.Blagsta said:
And we still are none the wiser as to whether you think white middleclass locusts fuel buy to let boom.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
What causes the lack of social housing in the south is lack of new build.brasicattack said:
What causes the shortage of affordable private rentals (which has nothing to do with "social housing") is landlordism, whoever it's carried out by (predominantly, as you say, "white middle class" in the south-east).
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
northernhoard said:
IMHO the entire problem, as you say, is actually a whole complex of problems. From "right to buy", to low level of new build, to absurdly high land and property prices. Where I am the "buy to let" problem is mostly down to white middle-class people investing their equity in more property, and then sweating their assets for whatever the traffic will bear, and they're able to do so because there's a real deficit in social or affordable housing.
northernhord
Active Member
ViolentPanda said:
Yeah
Some hard legistlation is needed here but this will take a suit with spine inside it and I dont see any on the Horizon, what do you reckon Bro?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
northernhoard said:Yeah
Some hard legistlation is needed here but this will take a suit with spine inside it and I dont see any on the Horizon, what do you reckon Bro?
1) Depending on current legislation on new-build private housing mandating a percentage of "affordable" dwellings is pie-in-the-sky. "Affordable" ISN'T, if the price is still 5+ x the average annual wage, or the rent is approx 60% of the average monthly salary.
2) Housing associations have been a busted flush in terms of social housing provision ever since they were tasked with all social housing development in 1983-84. They haven't managed to meet demand (or even half of the demand) in any year since then. They most they've done is nibble at the edges of the problem, and take just enough stress out of the system to stop it collapsing.
3) We've had a fair bit of talk about "council housing" from the pols in the last month or so, but talk, or even action on a grand scale, will still mean a stressed housing system for the next 7-10 years minimum, and I don't see Brown having the stones to delegate enough powers to local authorities to develop and build anything like the necessary amount of social housing, not least because all those "buy to let" landlords, would take a hit, and if there's anything the centrist tossers who call themselves "Labour", "Tory" or "Lib-Dem" won't do, it's aggravate their own.
Shitting on the so-called underclass though, nothing new with that, so it'll continue to be those who aren't "politically useful" who suffer, IMHO.
northernhord
Active Member
ViolentPanda said:
Yeah exactly, its all about 'what can that group do to help me further my/ourselves' and the underclass havnt got anything these self interested scumbags want.
Right, leaving the colour thing aside, what (realistically speaking) can we do about it?
Demand the government build more social housing?
Ban people from having more than one home?
Ban property development companies/letting companies?
What? Personally, if it were up to me I'd demand the government engineer a housing price slow down through building more social housing to the point where house prices rise slower than inflation and hence fall in real terms over several decades. I wouldn't like to see a total crash like we got from the Tories as that would really hurt.
I think a certain Lib Dem MP proposed banning people from owning 2nd homes and making a certain wealth tax on homes worth over 1 million. Doubt the party will take up the 2nd homes bit, maybe the wealth tax though.
Demand the government build more social housing?
Ban people from having more than one home?
Ban property development companies/letting companies?
What? Personally, if it were up to me I'd demand the government engineer a housing price slow down through building more social housing to the point where house prices rise slower than inflation and hence fall in real terms over several decades. I wouldn't like to see a total crash like we got from the Tories as that would really hurt.
I think a certain Lib Dem MP proposed banning people from owning 2nd homes and making a certain wealth tax on homes worth over 1 million. Doubt the party will take up the 2nd homes bit, maybe the wealth tax though.
northernhord
Active Member
Bear said:
I,d certainly look at areas where there isnt much affordable housing and keep buy to let prohibited unless prospective landlords were prepaired to rent out at an affordable local rate.
I dont see fuck all wrong with building loadsa New Council Houses, they are a long term social investment for people and councils who benefit from the rent of these houses.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
brasicattack said:Colour has quite a lot to do with it as i am speaking demographically. Do you not think that the majority of buy to let people are from white middleclass backgrounds blagsta? Or are demographics only of interest when they ignore this fact?
btw thanks pete i have a sporting pop at your thread you have a pop at mine do you agree that it is white middleclass people who are fuelling the buy to let boom pete?
Maybe i have touched a raw nerve as the white middleclass seem to be immune from critisism on these boards what a suprise
If i was to troll i would go for somthing with imgination like... did blair agree to iraq war as he was thinking about becoming a catholic
How very interesting for you to say that "Colour has quite a lot to do with it"...but only when it suits you - non?
Who are these "middle class people" and what defines them as a group? Why have you decided to pick on "white middle class people" as opposed to other skin colours? You are a aware that there is a Black and Asian middle class too, why have you omitted them from your 'thesis'? Furthermore, what do demographics have to do with this 'thesis'?
Isn't the problem with the system rather than the individuals?
brasicattack said:so let me try to understand your position. Because i start a thread which is titled white middleclass locusts fuel right to let boom I am using a far right trick and trying to divide people along racial lines?
My understanding is that the far right do not critise white middleclass people in which case it is obvious which politcal group you belong to.
I think you have managed to flush out a few closet racists with this thread brassic.....
I love the way the right on liberals have taken offence.....and said "Oh but the Asians and Blacks are doing it as well"
And then in the next sentence!!!!! go on to say its about class....
I wonder how many of them stand to inherit a hefty wedge from relatives....
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
tbaldwin said:
I think you've managed to prove, once again, that you're on a wind up mission.
Do you think that I have inherited a "hefty wedge", baldwin?
Go on, do your worst.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
The problems with engineering an economic solution are manifold, but off the top of my head the worst effects would be:Bear said:
1) An engineered price fall could trigger panic selling, which would both benefit the financial institutions (through defaults on borrowing etc) and harm those at the bottom of the chain, the tenants, some of whom will be either poor or unemployed.
2) Economic management of that sort is usually gerrymandered by Capital into serving Capital's needs first, with the electorates' needs a distant second.
3) Any economic action that increased homelessness by more than a fraction of a percent would, with the current stock of available social housing, probably cause "meltdown". There is no slack whatsoever in social housing provision, so no buffer to absorb anyone hurt by an engineered price fall (bearing in mind that those who'll feel most pain are those least financially able to avoid it).
A progressive tax based on a percentage of value would be probably be effective, but won't fly with our current crop of political knobshines.
Second homes-wise, I'd love to ban second homes, but would settle in the short term for stopping people who already own one home buying another existing home - if they want another home they have to acquire the land, submit plans, and develop the property themselves, so a new home gets built, rather than one being taken out of circulation.
Most of all I'd like to see a surge in local authority social housing development, coupled with the removal of "right to buy" from anyone given a tenancy in these new properties (and preferably from current tenants in already-existing social housing too).
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
tbaldwin said:
Muppet.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Blagsta said:
Is that actually possible?
nino_savatte said:I think you've managed to prove, once again, that you're on a wind up mission.
Do you think that I have inherited a "hefty wedge", baldwin?
Go on, do your worst.
I have very little idea....But it honestly would not suprise me if you came from a working class background....Ive met people who come across as right stuck up snobs and found out later that they came from working class backgrounds...In lots of ways i think its more sad.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Unfortunately they've got rid of it now, but for many years Belgium taxed any profit made selling a house at a hefty 75%, thus all but eliminating property speculation and keeping house prices right down.
Introducing such a tax now would have the effect of stopping the speculators in their tracks without triggering panic selling.
Introducing such a tax now would have the effect of stopping the speculators in their tracks without triggering panic selling.
Similar threads
