ZZTop/Moose

Discussion in 'Politics' started by kVA, Jun 16, 2017.

  1. Moose

    Moose First Team

    It's a reasonable protest point though. A housing crisis and homes are empty because people merely want a vehicle for their cash.

    This needs to stop and to do so means measures that may seem unreasonable. It means saying enough is enough and no you can't to powerful interests.

    It's obvious that these flats will not be requisitioned, also obvious that property rights must be respected. But we also need to acknowledge that those same property rights can't be used to disadvantage UK citizens for the benefit of foreign investors.

    What would you do about it? Where would you house these people and how to solve the ongoing housing crisis?
     
  2. @julesmckenzie

    @julesmckenzie Academy Graduate

    To solve the ongoing issue the bank induced housing bubble needs to be forcefully burst without exception or from them. If they dont comply, threaten regulation. If they get clever focus quantitative funding on building societies only. We only need big banks because they tell us we do. Ask Blankfein, Carney, and Steigel, they will tell you the same.

    The land sold to the big building companies on the cheap needs to have time-based regulation forced on them so that profit optimisation by easing up on building supply is stopped point blank. Its not like they wont make a decent enough profit is it? If they dont comply make a compulsory purchase and split the work between smaller companies in the PROPER CAPITALIST MANNER not the bullsh!t monopolistic corporate communism.

    Get all those derelict and landgrabbed areas sold off and knocked down. Make building part of a proper curriculum instead of hiding them away as 'Vocational' subjects for sh!t kids.

    Tax second houses. Tax empty houses. Equalise rent for private and social housing. Make landlords legally responsible and not their shell companies.

    If the super rich want a colony, offer them the Isle of Wight. Its getting washed away anyway. Or tell they can move where there money is in Cayman etc. They can make a house out of it if they want. Its no use to us over there.

    Make housing benefit reliant on community engagement and if they cant be bothered give them a tent in the field near Magnox.

    Ok maybe gone too far....
     
  3. Clive_ofthe_Kremlin

    Clive_ofthe_Kremlin Squad Player


    Compulsory purchase happens all the time. Whenever they're running a new road or railway. It's not like it's something unusual.

    In those cases, it often means the owner or tenant having to move out and find somewhere else to live. That is obviously not the case where a home is left empty and unused by its owner. Compulsorily purchasing them would, you imagine, cause little inconvenience or distress to the owner - especially those who only held it as an investment anyway.

    It's to their shame by the way, that they haven't come forward and offered the places up on a temporary basis. They either have no empathy for their fellow human being or they don't even know the fire happened. Either is as likely.

    It's human nature to believe that everyone thinks the same way as you do, and for that reason, Tories, who believe in every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost, always believe that everyone else is only motivated by sly, evil and malicious reasons - just the same as they are.

    That is the only reason I can think you believe the idea of housing families made homeless in the most traumatic of circumstances in local empty homes would be motivated by some bizarre idea of "revenge". Do you really envisage us getting a poor burnt out family housed somewhere safe and local and then getting together afterwards to rub our hands together and cheer about getting some of our own back on the richies? Be honest now.

    It's fascinating seeing Tories struggling to explain to us why, when there's a homeless family here and an empty house over there, putting the one with the other is completely and absolutely impossible. Because, on the face of it, it seems so practical, doesn't it?

    I thought it would stretch your Tory powers of imagination beyond the limits to come up with arguments against. Revenge against the rich indeed!
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2017
    @julesmckenzie likes this.
  4. Once all the ungrateful greedy swine bankers fark off to Paris after Brexit canary wharf should be empty, turn it into social housing
     
  5. Arakel

    Arakel First Team

    I'm not sure taxing unused properties would accomplish much. Chances are most people who have an empty home can afford to meet anything other than a truly ridiculous tax, especially in areas where housing prices are higher.

    If the aim of having a tax on second/unused homes tax is to make the tax so ludicrously high that no one could reasonably pay it to thus force house sales, you'd be better off just passing a law barring people from owning more than one home and barring those not resident in the UK from owning property. At least that would be an honest approach to the problem. It'd likely be far more successful too, considering that an exorbitant second home tax would simply make second homes even more of a status symbol for the rich.
     
  6. zztop

    zztop Eurovision Winner 2015

    I'm not sure that most empty houses are "trophy" or even second homes for holidays etc. There were, according to research published in Metro, 593 empty homes in Newham, the poorest borough in London, and 1563 in Blackburn.
     
  7. @julesmckenzie

    @julesmckenzie Academy Graduate

    The combination of taxing (thanks for the extra revenue) and building supply (which will lower house prices) will make owning a second home untenable.

    I am sure a loophole will be found as the greedy make housing purchases on a 'per hamster' basis or similar. But in the meantime it may alleviate some of the pressure.
     
  8. Lloyd

    Lloyd Reservist

    The UK will always have a housing a 'housing crisis' as long as we have an open door immigration policy. And of course, the situation isn't helped by the fact that the poor breed like rats
     
  9. Clive_ofthe_Kremlin

    Clive_ofthe_Kremlin Squad Player

    I suppose this is trolling. Pretty weak stuff Lloyd.
     
  10. Bwood_Horn

    Bwood_Horn Reservist

    Of course they breed like rats - they're mammals. The male mammal places its erect penis into the female mammal vagina - have you not experienced this?
     
  11. Lloyd

    Lloyd Reservist

    Sorry - I've been away and am a little off the pace. I'll try harder
     
  12. Moose

    Moose First Team

    Seems unlikely he has.
     
  13. Moose

    Moose First Team

    Yes, they are quite different. Few of those in Newham will be empty for the same reasons as Blackburn. Newham has plenty of 'buy to invest' property, esp around the Olympic Park, but prices are so high that even a moderate terrace in the least fashionable borough will allow someone to squirrel away half a million pounds of criminal enterprise.
     
  14. Arakel

    Arakel First Team

    So why not just outright ban second homes instead? If the intent of such a tax is to make it impossible to own a second home then just ban the ownership of second homes.

    A roundabout way of doing things does no one any favours.
     
  15. @julesmckenzie

    @julesmckenzie Academy Graduate


    Because as you say, some people will still want a second home. Some will want a holiday home, some will require a flat in the city etc.

    If you start making laws that have caveats, provisos, and clauses you end up with loopholes that get exploited.

    The approach of tackling both the cause and the effect at the same time negates loopholes, but still allows those with the need to continue. It just puts off those that profiteer or hoard properties as investments, thus lowering house prices, and gaining revenue for second properties.
     
  16. Arakel

    Arakel First Team

    OK. So they want another house. And? That doesn't mean that want needs to be realisable.

    If a tax is prohibitive enough that the average person can't possibly afford to own a second home I fail to see why having a large bank balance should entitle someone to bypass that issue if the stated intent is to free up real estate.

    If we envision only a tiny percentage of the population even being able to entertain the notion of a second home under a second home tax then it would just make more sense to ban the practice outright.

    If those who can afford a proposed tax make up more than a tiny percentage, however, then I'd question what we're changing by creating a new tax. Unless it's prohibitively expensive, all it would do is push up costs for renters.
     
  17. @julesmckenzie

    @julesmckenzie Academy Graduate

    I d
    I do see your point. IMO it just seems like a sledgehammer to crack an nut. Maybe that is what is required at this stage.

    Lets say that a levy of 5% of value per annum was in place for a second home, then obviously London would be hit hardest due to its inflated prices.

    To offset the price rise in less inflated areas a social build policy was in place, the demand would be lowered by supply and prices would even out.

    I guess you might have to regulate rent to stop the cost being passed on, but buying would become much more accessible anyway.
     
  18. I feel caravans could be the answer



    Not sure what the question is mind
     
  19. Clive_ofthe_Kremlin

    Clive_ofthe_Kremlin Squad Player


    This all seems terribly complex.

    Couldn't we just follow what seems like blindingly obvious logic and assign housing according to need? One house for one family. Flats for the singletons. Bungalows for the old people. Little starter homes for the newly weds.

    It would be so much more efficient and would solve the housing 'crisis' at a stroke. Rather than being privately owned, the country's housing stock, making up as it does a vital part of the nation's infrastructure, would become the property of the people as a whole, to be distributed according to need.

    I don't suppose it will be long before another Tory ranter comes along to bellow about how it's all impossible and can't be done.
     
  20. zztop

    zztop Eurovision Winner 2015

    Presumably, you would be kicking small families and/or singletons out of their 3 or 4 bedroom council houses and flats.
     
  21. kVA

    kVA Academy Graduate



    Oh go on then, I'll bite.

    When the singletons become newly weds, will they automatically get a starter home? Are you forcing the concept of marriage on people?
    When the newly weds have a family and need a bigger house, what will happen?
    Will a divorce mean that wedded couples become singletons again?
    When children grow up and move out into the singleton home, will the parents have to down-size?
    At what age do I have to move into a bungalow and can I extend it?

    There you go, no ranting. To my simple mind the housing market that we have, generally, has dealt with these issues.
    Your suggestion seem very complicated but will create a whole industry of jobs.....
     
  22. Clive_ofthe_Kremlin

    Clive_ofthe_Kremlin Squad Player

    Yes. That's correct. That's what I mean about housing according to need.

    Although of course, rather than them being 'kicked out' onto the street with their belongings in black bin bags, like you Tories do, we would move them to somewhere more suited to their needs.
     
  23. Clive_ofthe_Kremlin

    Clive_ofthe_Kremlin Squad Player

    Yes. When a couple lives together, a one bedroom place will be fine. If they want to start a family then they will apply for a 2 bedroom starter home. They now have a need for another bedroom you see and scheme is based around human need rather than profit.

    No. The policy will apply to any grouping who would like to live together and whatever their marital status.

    They will get a bigger house because they need it. I repeat again, that would be the fundamentals of the scheme. According to need.

    Yes. A childless couple who separate might well wish to return to 1 bedroom homes that are apart. Alternatively one parent may want to leave a family home and take up a 1 bed apartment. That would be his or her need. It's all very simple really.

    Yes. A family home would no longer be appropriate. A 1 bedroom home for the couple would most likely be the best solution, perhaps in a community with others of that age group and in similar circumstances where friendships can be made and social and cultural events organised and the 'empty nest' syndrome avoided. Somewhere peaceful and away from younger people's 1 bed developments which might be a bit livelier and noisier.

    At whatever age it would be appropriate for your circumstances or when you wanted to.

    No, you cannot bloody extend it. Why on earth would you want to? You'd be an old fella by then anyway. Take our art classes or learn French or throw the ball around a circle in the sunshine with the other veterans. Don't be mumbling away to yourself whilst fiddling about with bricks and cement in your back garden at your age. There's really no need.

    And none in return!

    But it hasn't. Hundreds of thousands of homes lie empty. People are crammed into unsatisfactory and unsanitary housing. One in three private rents isn't fit for human habitation. Many more are homeless or sofa surfing. Other people have 10 homes or a hundred or five hundred (in the case of the buy to let empire builders). I would say that is evidence as plain as the nose on your face that it is NOT working. Very far from it.

    I would say my suggestion is simplicity itself. It's what a child would come up with if given five toy houses and five dolls. It would go against all common sense to cram four of the dolls into one house and declare the remaining doll the "owner" of the other four houses who has decided to leave them entirely empty for investment and tax reasons.
     
  24. zztop

    zztop Eurovision Winner 2015

    Say the old dear wants to stay in the house where she has lived for 70 years, all her friends are nearby and she loves her local community. She's barricading herself in and the basics are being passed to her through the kitchen window. The press have arrived with their cameras, just looking for a story. You going to frogmarch her out with her black bags?

    An alternative is the bedroom tax that encourages people to move out of houses that are too big.
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2017
  25. kVA

    kVA Academy Graduate

    If an elderly couple refuses to move out of an over-sized home, which they have lived in for most of their life, in a community that they know well and have friends, will you introduce a charge for the spare bedrooms?
     
  26. kVA

    kVA Academy Graduate

    Snap! Us Tories are soooooooo predictable.
     
  27. kVA

    kVA Academy Graduate

    I hate art, bloody left wing nonsense. French classes, why do you think I voted Brexit, grrrrrr......
     
    Clive_ofthe_Kremlin likes this.
  28. @julesmckenzie

    @julesmckenzie Academy Graduate

    I dont think people who have made good in their lives through toil and enterprise should be restricted in their choice of dwelling as much as I dont agree with those that havent living in the rent trap with no hope of escape.
     
  29. Clive_ofthe_Kremlin

    Clive_ofthe_Kremlin Squad Player

    It would be a very anti-social decision to want to stay in a house that's not suitable for her needs, bearing in mind that the situation is now different and houses are not 'owned' by the resident but by the whole community. It's housing provided for you to suit your needs at that particular stage of your life, rather than something that belongs to you for life. It would be as strange as demanding to hold on to ownership of your baby pushchair or a library book you'd already read.

    We wouldn't be looking to move people away from an area anyway, as each would have a mix of housing suitable for all the generations. Each one designed and built specially to meet the needs of people of that particular age. Imagine how well we could do that when we were planning simply to meet people's needs, as opposed to making as much commercial profit as possible. So the question of moving away from friends would not arise. They'd still be close. It's not beyond the wit of humankind in the 21st century with the technology at our disposal to easily solve small problems such as these.

    So after the scheme had been in and working well for a few decades, people would see how well it worked and how much fairer it was than the old chaotic private ownership/landlord model. The old lady's decision would seem bizarre and very anti-social. Community representatives would have to go and explain it to her carefully and tell her that a family needs it now so that they can raise the next generation in the same way she did.

    We'd take her and show her "Veteran's Villas", with its libraries, bowls clubs, allotments, swimming pool, cultural activities and U3A style educational classes. If that didn't convince her, we could show her the "Kipper's Korner" area of the development where individual houses are all set well apart from each other and have little fences or walls around them. We could show her some of the Kipper classes on old British motorbikes, Biplanes of the first world war and how to overturn ex-wives' restraining orders.

    And if all that failed to work, then a mob of henchmen would arrive and frogmarch her off to the salt mines.

    And we wouldn't have to worry about the press, because the newspapers would only have articles about new factory records set in tractor production and various comrades being presented with medals.
     
    zztop, @julesmckenzie and UEA_Hornet like this.
  30. kVA

    kVA Academy Graduate

    I get it, even though showing educational pictures from the 'glory days' of Great Britain might make her nostalgic for the past and may even start an oldie revoloution, they'll all be too old to really mount a challenge against the state, the soldiers of the up rising won't have long to fight before they cark it and the younger generation will just think they are senile old Gits anyway!

    And to finish it off, you'll control the press! All sounds a bit right wing to me. Are you sure you didn't vote UKIP?
     
  31. @julesmckenzie

    @julesmckenzie Academy Graduate

    Clive, your imagination is incredible.

    I love your posts even if for nothing more than literary value.

    Write a book dude. I'd buy it. =)
     
    iamofwfc and Clive_ofthe_Kremlin like this.
  32. Moose

    Moose First Team

    Generally I agree with the positive and not wholly Stalinist bits of what you are saying, but I don't think that old people clinging on in overlarge homes are 'antisocial'. I think you run the risk of treating housing like a commodity rather than a home.

    It can be very hard for older people to move on from their homes. People's gardens or views for example can be great motivators and big demotivators to lose. As they get much older and develop impairments simple navigation becomes an issue and they rely on habit and environment and their neighbours to be independent. To move people who don't wish to could do harm to them in their final years.

    And they are not the problem. Share out the homes and build a few new ones and we have plenty to go around. Another few years hanging on in a big house isn't here or their. It's the people with multiple dwellings, ordinary houses in seaside/country towns they use twice a year, that cause the problem.
     
    Clive_ofthe_Kremlin likes this.
  33. zztop

    zztop Eurovision Winner 2015

    Oh yes, I am sure they use the same methods in erm...Where is it now? Oh yes, Shangri La!
     

Share This Page