Terry T:
Our next door neighbour in a house identical to ours is paying more than double that in rent to the council. My parents were all paid up by their mid 50s and now live rent or mortgage free and will do until they kick the bucket. After which, I’ll cop for the house. My neighbours will be paying rent until god knows when and then leave their kids nothing.
That’s the difference between Socialism v Capitalism.But don’t expect any inheritance is guaranteed being that the Socialists are continuously looking at ways to cheat the Capitalists out of their property rights in the form of selectively applied non existent NHS cover for care costs if needed for home owners as opposed to Social housing tenants.Having said that the wage regime v deposit and mortgage requirement is the ever increasing problem in the case of buying a place. 
Carryfast:
war1974:
so you have your own home as its what you wanted to buy, others are happy not having 25 years of debt. and despite the cars etc are possibly easier to get on tick than a mortgage especially in the current climate.
this is the problem to me too many people too busy being bothered about what someone else has, you have a home which you see as an investment they have nice cars. and like I have said before the rent isn’t ‘subsidised’ if you work full time.
If the cost isn’t ‘subsidised’ by the state then exactly what is the OP whingeing about.He ‘says’ he will lose housing ‘benefit’ because his wages go over the threshold.When the fact is his wages ‘should’ cover the ‘total’ amount that he’s moaning about.
that’s him and his own situation - there are thousands of others out there who pay the full whack (whatever that is) to live in their house. my rent has gone up by almost 50% since I moved in 9 years ago but hey ho that’s life I doubt peoples mortgages have increased the same.
i cant believe this has trolled on for 9 pages
jbaz73:
i cant believe this has trolled on for 9 pages
Yeh, let’s knock it on the head and ponder the wisdom of Carryfast how we all went wrong all those years ago.
Most of us left home, some earlier than others, later on you started a family, took out a mortgage and are either still paying it, paid it off, or in my case I lost my house, dusted myself down, worked and rented, and thought I had got through it ok, under the circumstances.
Others chose to rent, from the start as it suited them, because the council provided houses for 2 generations or so previous, so they took them and worked to pay the rent. 
No you are ■■■■■■ spongers.
Others for whatever reason rented from the private sector, and paid substantially more.
Now here’s how we all went wrong, from the ‘Gospel according to Carryfast’. We should have made a stand and insist that our employers gave us all regular massive pay rises to ensure all mortgages are problem free when either the economic situation determines an interest change, or if things go ■■■■ up in our job or business.
If we can not get a guarantee that this will be a goer, then this is the clever bit…wait for it, don’t leave home and carry on living with your Mams for the rest of your life…Brilliant!
Oh, and then have a pop at everybody that didn’t while churning out political history lessons.
You forgot that it was all Maggies fault
its always maggies fault, and no I am going for 10 pages minimum as cant believe some people on here begrudge people in a council house and would rather some waster had it as they are in more need.
The way I see it, everyone needs a house, and nobody has a greater need than anybody else. Maybe there’s an argument over more rights, in which case I think a working family are more worthy than benefits scroungers
OVLOV JAY:
The way I see it, everyone needs a house, and nobody has a greater need than anybody else. Maybe there’s an argument over more rights, in which case I think a working family are more worthy than benefits scroungers
the whole everyone needs a house is so true, yet we have derelict buildings all over the UK and people homeless.
Totally crazy. We’ve lost site of an English man’s home is his castle, now it’s just an asset. It’s a crying shame really
jbaz73:
i cant believe this has trolled on for 9 pages
Any thread where carryfast gets on his high horse and starts mentioning thatcher/socialism or the 70s/80s is always good for 6-7 pages minimum
The-Snowman:
jbaz73:
i cant believe this has trolled on for 9 pages
Any thread where carryfast gets on his high horse and starts mentioning thatcher/socialism or the 70s/80s is always good for 6-7 pages minimum
And that’s just his posts, without everyone else’s
Carryfast:
While none of your answers have anything whatsoever to do with the OP’s issues.:
Er, that’s because I wasn’t providing answers to any question. I was taking issue with your condescending stance on Robroy and his experiences.
Freight Dog:
Carryfast:
While none of your answers have anything whatsoever to do with the OP’s issues.:
Er, that’s because I wasn’t providing answers to any question. I was taking issue with your condescending stance on Robroy and his experiences.
Which came about by him taking offence at ‘my stance’ concerning the OP’s case.
As I said Robroy’s issues and experiences were just another form of the general ones which I faced.IE Thatcher’s economic policies.
Which ironically in large part were supported by those who preferred the idea of social housing dependency in whatever form.Over so called industrial ‘militancy’ to create the wage and job environment required for people to look after themselves regards housing costs.
The question in that case being which side of ‘that’ argument that you,Robroy and the OP are all on.The OP at least seeming to have made his position clear on that matter based on the idea of why go for more wages,thereby making his employer responsible for his living costs,when the state will help to pay his bills instead.
You like pigeon holeing people don’t you? I am not on anyone’s “side”. Stop trying to box me in and stick one of your neat political labels on me just because I disagreed with your mean spirited attitude. You act like I’m a secret socialist dodging detection by yourself. Do you think I go round wearing a pink carnation and false nose? I don’t consider myself a socialist and frankly couldn’t give a twoddle if you do.
The issue of the mechanism behind social housing is an argument you seem to be trying to have with me, continuosuly referencing the OP. What are you asking? Do I agree with the OP or do I agree with social housing? Two different things. - Not all people who find themselves in social housing are the same in attitude as the OP are they?
I’ll be honest I don’t know what I think about the wider issue. It’s one of those many broken solutions that was once a well meaning idea but has been misused. It’s helped some, and abused by many. You won’t like that, that I don’t know. Go ahead, label me then.
This social housing thing is of those topics you revel in and can easily steer towards your comfort zone - wallowing around using fatuous political words and very boring history lessons like a horse in a dusty field. Knock yourself out ace, I’m not interested in discussing it with you.
Freight Dog:
You like pigeon holeing people don’t you? I am not on anyone’s “side”. Stop trying to box me in and stick one of your neat political labels on me just because I disagreed with your mean spirited attitude. You act like I’m a secret socialist dodging detection by yourself. Do you think I go round wearing a pink carnation and false nose? I don’t consider myself a socialist and frankly couldn’t give a twoddle if you do.
The issue of the mechanism behind social housing is an argument you seem to be trying to have with me, continuosuly referencing the OP. What are you asking? Do I agree with the OP or do I agree with social housing? Two different things. - Not all people who find themselves in social housing are the same in attitude as the OP are they?
I’ll be honest I don’t know what I think about the wider issue. It’s one of those many broken solutions that was once a well meaning idea but has been misused. It’s helped some, and abused by many. You won’t like that, that I don’t know. Go ahead, label me then.
This social housing thing is of those topics you revel in and can easily steer towards your comfort zone - wallowing around using fatuous political words and very boring history lessons like a horse in a dusty field. Knock yourself out ace, I’m not interested in discussing it with you.
As I read it,just like Robroy,it was you who started having a go at me about my posts ‘concerning the OP’s argument’.IE zb all to do with you or Robroy.It was also you who seemed to be categorising me as a ‘headless idealistic chicken’.As for your position I don’t know or care bearing in mind that I don’t differentiate between so called Cons or Socialists being that on this issue they are effectively all the same.
So as I said the question is one of either support of militancy and standing together to sort out the incomes crisis which is the cause of the problem.As opposed to support of Callaghan’s and Thatcher’s ideas,of using state funded housing benefit handouts in whatever form,to subsidise the ongoing policy of anti union wage restraint and the low wage economy that goes with it.There’s no middle ground in that argument and it seems no surprise that you want to avoid the question.On that note as in the case of the OP if the cap fits wear it.
While at the same time the same argument is going to be the key as to wether the ‘Labour’ Party wants to commit political suicide by following the same old Socialist bs.
Or change course to the idea that the industrial strife and militancy ( unity ) of the 1970’s is entirely consistent with the idea of Fordist Capitalism.
As opposed to Callaghan’s idea of Socialism and Thatcher’s idea of ‘Capitalism’ which are actually both one and the same thing.The result being the typical case of the OP telling his guvnor that he wants less wages in order to maintain his state housing benefit dependency.As opposed to saying that he wants enough wages to be able to live without it.
the thing is carryfast - you may not be aware but it isn’t the 70’s anymore, people go online and order stuff from all over the world. why? because it is cheaper than buying locally, no doubt you will put this down to low wages etc. but the fact of life is everyone loves a bargain, if wages were to increase to the levels mentioned we would still be in the same position but have zero manufacturing industries (how can we compete against china if everyone is on £15 an hour).
wages can only increase if the product is wanted and world class, or you end up with the whole MG Rover/ Leyland etc. and yes we know in the 70’s the tech may have been advanced but look at the mini - why update / improve when we can churn the same thing people have bought for 30 years?
but back on topic I still fail to see how the OP is on any form of reduced rent given his current wage or what scheme would subsidise him to such an extent.
@carryfast
Sorry if I have missed it but do you now own your house.
war1974:
the thing is carryfast - you may not be aware but it isn’t the 70’s anymore…
I don’t think Carryfast knows which century it is, let alone which decade.
