robroy:
As I said mate,… In my situation, Council house or cardboard box■■?
Or train driver’s type wages but like them no one will get that unless they fight for it.
What’s wrong Carryfast, is it really so hard to answer the question in a direct way, that I have posed to you 3 times. Admit it, that given the circumstances to deal with, as I did, that you would have done exactly the bloody same , when handed a lifeline by the dreaded Socialist society.
Is it really too much of a conflict with your conscience?..surely not, I mean you have already admitted to being (as you would probably say) a serial sponger off the Socialist Health service, so what is another small confession between friends.
So come on let’s hear it, or are even you running out of smokescreen gobbldegook/bullcrap to evade the question , I find that hard to believe in your case.
I have answered your question but you can’t understand it.Yes I ‘could’ have been in that position.‘But’ the difference is I wouldn’t have tried to justify the argument that it was the ‘right’ or sustainable solution to a problem which is all about my low income levels in work causing my unsustainable dependence on state handouts.
Which as I’ve said in this case means that ‘if’ the OP said that it isn’t right that state funding is being used to compensate for an arguable short fall in income levels that employers ‘should be’ paying not the state then I’d probably agree with him.On the basis that in an ideal world around £ 600 pw gross probably isn’t enough to cover living costs in the south east.Let alone the £80 per week gross which I was being paid as a council worker 35-30 years ago.
But ‘that’ isn’t what he,or you,seem to have said.
Carryfast:
While the definition of ‘housing ladder’ obviously means they’ll put a limited no resale at a profit time period in to make it look good.Then after that the new first time buyer can flog the place for a state subsidised profit in the hope of a free upgrade to somewhere better at the next buyer’s expense.Or in other words yet another example of the Con version of ‘Capitalism’ in action.
robroy:
As I said mate,… In my situation, Council house or cardboard box■■?
Or train driver’s type wages but like them no one will get that unless they fight for it.
What’s wrong Carryfast, is it really so hard to answer the question in a direct way, that I have posed to you 3 times. Admit it, that given the circumstances to deal with, as I did, that you would have done exactly the bloody same , when handed a lifeline by the dreaded Socialist society.
Is it really too much of a conflict with your conscience?..surely not, I mean you have already admitted to being (as you would probably say) a serial sponger off the Socialist Health service, so what is another small confession between friends.
So come on let’s hear it, or are even you running out of smokescreen gobbldegook/bullcrap to evade the question , I find that hard to believe in your case.
I have answered your question but you can’t understand it.Yes I ‘could’ have been in that position.‘But’ the difference is I wouldn’t have tried to justify the argument that it was the ‘right’ or sustainable solution to a problem which is all about my low income levels in work causing my unsustainable dependence on state handouts.
Which as I’ve said in this case means that ‘if’ the OP said that it isn’t right that state funding is being used to compensate for an arguable short fall in income levels that employers ‘should be’ paying not the state then I’d probably agree with him.On the basis that in an ideal world around £ 600 pw gross probably isn’t enough to cover living costs in the south east.Let alone the £80 per week gross which I was being paid as a council worker 35-30 years ago.
But ‘that’ isn’t what he,or you,seem to have said.
Well I reckon that’s about as close to an admission that I am going to get.
I have already distanced myself from the o/p’s case. He’s original circumstances were maybe at least similar to mine, but unlike him I did not try and work the system as he did by avoiding a rent increase by manipulating my income to qualify for a much lower monthly rent.
I took on a rent which was the going rate and the full amount, and went on to pay the periodical increases. The fact that Council house rents are usually lower than private rents is not my fault, I paid in full the amount I was asked to.
However by your reckoning you will have me down as being no better than the o/p, just for even taking on a Council house in the first place.
So here we are again to square 1 and completing a full circle. So instead of covering another 3 pages let’s just draw a line under it there eh?
Carryfast:
While the definition of ‘housing ladder’ obviously means they’ll put a limited no resale at a profit time period in to make it look good.Then after that the new first time buyer can flog the place for a state subsidised profit in the hope of a free upgrade to somewhere better at the next buyer’s expense.Or in other words yet another example of the Con version of ‘Capitalism’ in action.
Great isn’t it. Kerchinnnnng
Oh God, don’t give him an excuse to start again , I’ve only just managed to try and succeed to shut him up.
Carryfast:
While the definition of ‘housing ladder’ obviously means they’ll put a limited no resale at a profit time period in to make it look good.Then after that the new first time buyer can flog the place for a state subsidised profit in the hope of a free upgrade to somewhere better at the next buyer’s expense.Or in other words yet another example of the Con version of ‘Capitalism’ in action.
Great isn’t it. Kerchinnnnng
If like the OP anyone agrees with the idea of state funded handouts being used to provide state subsidised housing that subsidises low wage employment.Let alone a discounted house buy that will then be flogged off at a profit thereby proving that Cameron’s building spree has zb all to do with housing affordability and everything to do with following his heroine Thatcher’s Commy plans,then absolutely.
How is social housing subsidised? If you think the government pay up to £500 a month per council property, you’re deluded. Private and social are 2 different markets. Nobody subsidises social, just the same as nobody subsidises Ford because a mondeo is cheaper than a bmw. The real problem is the over inflated private sector, driven by greed. I could rent privately, but when my neighbour pays double my rent to a private landlord, for an identical property, why would I? I can afford to pay £2 for a newspaper, but I wouldn’t as the price is 30p
OVLOV JAY:
How is social housing subsidised? If you think the government pay up to £500 a month per council property, you’re deluded. Private and social are 2 different markets. Nobody subsidises social, just the same as nobody subsidises Ford because a mondeo is cheaper than a bmw. The real problem is the over inflated private sector, driven by greed. I could rent privately, but when my neighbour pays double my rent to a private landlord, for an identical property, why would I? I can afford to pay £2 for a newspaper, but I wouldn’t as the price is 30p
Exactly! But we all know Carryfast is never wrong.
OVLOV JAY:
How is social housing subsidised? If you think the government pay up to £500 a month per council property, you’re deluded. Private and social are 2 different markets. Nobody subsidises social, just the same as nobody subsidises Ford because a mondeo is cheaper than a bmw. The real problem is the over inflated private sector, driven by greed. I could rent privately, but when my neighbour pays double my rent to a private landlord, for an identical property, why would I? I can afford to pay £2 for a newspaper, but I wouldn’t as the price is 30p
Carryfast:
While the definition of ‘housing ladder’ obviously means they’ll put a limited no resale at a profit time period in to make it look good.Then after that the new first time buyer can flog the place for a state subsidised profit in the hope of a free upgrade to somewhere better at the next buyer’s expense.Or in other words yet another example of the Con version of ‘Capitalism’ in action.
Great isn’t it. Kerchinnnnng
If like the OP anyone agrees with the idea of state funded handouts being used to provide state subsidised housing that subsidises low wage employment.Let alone a discounted house buy that will then be flogged off at a profit thereby proving that Cameron’s building spree has zb all to do with housing affordability and everything to do with following his heroine Thatcher’s Commy plans,then absolutely.
Well I won’t be saying no. Guess it’s a case of right place right time.
Come on, if someone offered you £20k off a £100k house you’d take it wouldn’t you ■■?
If like the OP anyone agrees with the idea of state funded handouts being used to provide state subsidised housing that subsidises low wage employment.Let alone a discounted house buy that will then be flogged off at a profit thereby proving that Cameron’s building spree has zb all to do with housing affordability and everything to do with following his heroine Thatcher’s Commy plans,then absolutely.
Well I won’t be saying no. Guess it’s a case of right place right time.
Come on, if someone offered you £20k off a £100k house you’d take it wouldn’t you ■■?
We’re not talking about a private sale in which the seller is willing to accept a lower than market value price.It’s a state funded handout to provide some buyers with a personal profit.Just like Thatcher’s council house sell off.
The relevant bit for the topic is that,in view of the above,even ‘if’ I was a potential beneficiary,I wouldn’t moan about it ‘if’ the scam was suddenly knocked on the head,before being implemented.Being that the idea just uses public money in the form of handouts which 'should be covered by wages,while actually also adding to the issue of house price inflation.
Having said that assuming that it’s supposedly all about helping people to afford a house would you be as interested ‘if’ the deal involved a ‘permanent’ no profit sale condition ?,If not why not.
carryfast you should go into politics mate, your ideally suited, why give a 1 sentence answer when you can give several and get your hidden agenda across each and every time?
the trouble is whilst I don’t necessarily agree always with what you say a lot of your posts get lost amongst the agenda, whereas a simple answer would make more of an impact and possibly get the point across quicker.
war1974:
but doesn’t that make you just as bad as the OP?
The scheme is for first time buyers under 40. I’m a first time buyer under 40 so I’ll be taking advantage of it. As would anyone else.
Anyone who claims they wouldn’t is probably lying.
personally I don’t have an issue but if everyone is going to shoot the OP and people who live in social housing then I think its a bit of pot / kettle syndrome, seeing as its only because you hit the criteria, have admitted you will only buy to make a profit thus in turn taking the opportunity and preventing some poor person the same.
its the same to me as the OP you know the rules and are making them work for you.
I haven’t said anything about the OP so there is no pot and kettle situation here.
I also never said I was only going to buy the property just to sell on for a profit. But, at a time when I’m looking to buy my own place for the first time I’d be mad not to take a 20% discount offer. It’s money in the bank for me. You’d do the same and you’d be a fool if you didn’t.
Terry T:
I haven’t said anything about the OP so there is no pot and kettle situation here.
I also never said I was only going to buy the property just to sell on for a profit. But, at a time when I’m looking to buy my own place for the first time I’d be mad not to take a 20% discount offer. It’s money in the bank for me. You’d do the same and you’d be a fool if you didn’t.
I don’t disagree terry, I would so would anyone in the same criteria / situation.
my point is if you put a thread up saying got a new house on this scheme, the reaction would be totally different, yet we have 2 guys making a set of rules work for them.
apologies for not realising you had not slated him.
Terry T:
I haven’t said anything about the OP so there is no pot and kettle situation here.
I also never said I was only going to buy the property just to sell on for a profit. But, at a time when I’m looking to buy my own place for the first time I’d be mad not to take a 20% discount offer. It’s money in the bank for me. You’d do the same and you’d be a fool if you didn’t.
Great.So you’ll have no problems with an answer to the question would you still buy into the scam ‘if’ it was subject to a ‘permanent’ re sale only at original purchase price condition ?.
Which still doesn’t sort the issue of state handouts being used to reduce the responsibilities of employers in paying sufficient wages for their staff to afford some where decent to live.As opposed to subsidising their profit margins with cheap state subsidised housing.
OVLOV JAY:
How is social housing subsidised? If you think the government pay up to £500 a month per council property, you’re deluded. Private and social are 2 different markets. Nobody subsidises social, just the same as nobody subsidises Ford because a mondeo is cheaper than a bmw. The real problem is the over inflated private sector, driven by greed. I could rent privately, but when my neighbour pays double my rent to a private landlord, for an identical property, why would I? I can afford to pay £2 for a newspaper, but I wouldn’t as the price is 30p
How is it subsidised? As I said in my earlier post, the local council here spends 20% of its income (which is derived almost entirely from either Central Government grants or local taxes) on housing. That 20% spend, almost all of which is handed to the Social Housing providers, allows said providers to rent out their houses at substantially lower rentals. Note, these rents are not only lower than necessary to yield a profit, they do not even cover the costs of providing/maintaining the houses. By any yardstick, that is clearly a case of the rent being subsidised by the taxpayer. For the avoidance of doubt, I make no judgement on whether that subsidy is justified, justifiable, necessary or desirable - I simply assert that it exists.
, I find that hard to believe in your case.
Oh God, don’t give him an excuse to start again 
