Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Indeed. The whole private landlords getting council money is pretty much just a scam, and one easily avoided by investing in social housing stock.
That really gaks me off. If private companies / individuals can make a fortune from council rents, then why can't the council? Why aren't the council buying/building up the housing stock and renting it out at a profit?
Because they were specifically prevented from doing so by the 1980s Conservative government on idealogical grounds. Council tenants were given the right to buy their previously rented accommodation (fair enough in principle, but it does make life more difficult for everyone living in a block when different flats are under different ownership)*, but the councils were specifically banned from investing the proceeds of those sales in new housing stock.
There are "Housing Associations", which are (I believe) non-profit organisations doing the same job as council houses (Glasgow either hived off the housing department as the GHA, or sold their housing stock to them, I'm not sure of the details), which appear to be building new public housing, but nowhere near enough of it.
*Because to get anything done in a block with multiple owners, you need to get the consent of everyone in the block. Which can be a problem when the one flat doesn't see the benefit in having the lawns mowed and the fences repaired, and is particularly bad when the guy in the ground-floor flat refuses to contribute to repairs to the roof.
The biggest issue right now is that Buy To Let is all but fool proof.
No matter how you pay for the property, you're allowed to charge the mortgage plus X% in rent - minimising any personal exposure to risk.
That needs to change. Rent Control in London alone would soon see this bizarre fetish of the middle classes die off, because the 'only going to get more expensive' safety net is removed.
And when London gets back to sanity, the home counties will too. Knock on effect, and housing becomes something you live in again, not a 'retirement investment'.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Negative equity is only a problem if you think of a house as an investment, and not, well, property. Everything else I buy depreciates.
Mind you, it's also an effect of a lack of job security. I mean, if I buy a house with the intent of living in it until I die (which is what my parents did in the 70s), then a reduction in the price is irrelevant, as I'm not intending to sell it. If I need to sell up every five years because I've changed job, then it's a problem.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Just need to build more social housing stock for new tenants, and tax second home and Buy-To-Let empires out the backside of next week.
It would also help massively if those currently struggling to save a deposit and that just stopped.
Why bust your hump now to buy your Starter Bijou Matchbox property, when you know it's massively overpriced and it's just a matter of time until the bubble bursts, and you're trapped in negative equity....
We have to be careful not to do too much damage though. Not everyone wants to buy (those in short terms jobs may want to rent) so you don't want to completely destroy the rental market. What should be taxed are empty properties that don't have a permanent resident in for at least 10 months per year (with exceptions for where you can show in the last three years it has been permanently used - effectively to stop people being penalised if there is a transition period between old/new residents). I'd base this as a percentage of the property (which could increase as the value increases). So a 5% tax on a London investment flat worth £1m would be an additional tax of £50,000 per year which should be enough to stop them being used as an investment portfolio.
On a lighter note here are two Christmas cracker jokes that are doing the rounds.
Why was Theresa May sacked as nativity manager???? She couldn’t run a stable government.
Theresa May has asked Santa for a home makeover this year..... First thing on the list was a new cabinet
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: It's not about destroying the rental market - just making it less of a sure-thing.
If it becomes no more or less risky than regular investments, interest will drop off - especially amongst the most unscrupulous.
That's difficult though because you make it too much of a risk then the banks won't loan the money which means then that the supply dries up completely. Don't get me wrong, I do agree with the principles of what you are saying, but think it should be more related to the supply of properties that want them and renting is there for those that need to rent, rather than have no choice but to rent (and really hammering the buy it and leave it empty issues).
In other news. A well run state owned franchise rail network now costing the tax payer billions because the Tories put it into private hands....well done folks, well done (sarcasm!)
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Its why we're engaging in Proxy Wars in Ukraine and elsewhere once again, we never relinquished our Cold War mentality and belligerence towards Russia. Russia should have been invited to join the European Union, or at least the Single Market.
We did it for our former enemy Germany, why not Russia?
The would imply Russia giving up it's cold war mentality and belligerence towards NATO countries as well, which never happened.
Today's Russia sure. Yeltsin's Russia went way out of its way to appease the west (to the point of being constantly accused of rolling over whenever the west whistled domestically).
Dismantling NATO would have been an excellent de-escalation measure at the time.
Why bust your hump now to buy your Starter Bijou Matchbox property, when you know it's massively overpriced and it's just a matter of time until the bubble bursts, and you're trapped in negative equity....
The thing is the bubble never really bursts by much. Any major drop in price would cause a flurry of people moving up market, and long term housing us always going to go up unless something really disrupts the market.
Negative equity is only a problem if you think of a house as an investment, and not, well, property. Everything else I buy depreciates.
Mind you, it's also an effect of a lack of job security. I mean, if I buy a house with the intent of living in it until I die (which is what my parents did in the 70s), then a reduction in the price is irrelevant, as I'm not intending to sell it. If I need to sell up every five years because I've changed job, then it's a problem.
Negative equity can have a huge impact on mortgage rates, and potentially leaves the owner trapped in what could become unsuitable property. That said it's only a matter of time until equity builds up.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/12 19:40:54
There was no particular need to dismantle it because the Soviet Union collapsed.
There was never any threat from NATO towards the Russian Federation, however we now have clear evidence that Putin has been interfering in western countries in a most hostile manner.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In other surprising news, Train Operating Companies are a bunch of lying gaks whom the government facilitates in their abuse of the public by not applying the relevant laws intended to prevent his kind of behaviour.
Investigation ordered into 'misleading' festive tickets
There was no particular need to dismantle it because the Soviet Union collapsed.
There was never any threat from NATO towards the Russian Federation, however we now have clear evidence that Putin has been interfering in western countries in a most hostile manner.
Seeing NATO is led by country invading foreign countries on trumped up charges I wouldn't be so sure about that...They invaded other countries far more openly than Russia has done topling over goverments. Russia hasn't done that open invasion.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/12 21:42:28
Kilkrazy wrote:With regards to the tax contribution of the rich, the UK did not use to have a serious finance problem. It has developed while the tax rates on the rich and in particular on business have been reduced over the past generation.
The doubling of the national debt since 2007 was largely caused by the government bailing out the banks. Private businesses were saved from bankruptcy by tax payers' money.
From this perspective, while I acknowledge that demands have increased (e.g. housing benefit, paid to private landlords) I believe that low taxation is part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
You have to be joking. You do realise that In 1976 we had to be bailed out by the IMF, which at the time was the largest bail out in the history of the IMF? Inflation adjusted it is still one of the highest bail outs ever given out by the IMF. There have been plenty of times in our history where the country has been an economic basket case. One of the reasons that a lot of older voters vote conservative (really most of them are just voting against Labour as opposed to any real affinity for the tories) is because historically the pattern has been one of Labour governments sinking the economy and the conservatives recovering it, usually through low taxation to let people keep more of their own money to spend as they please. The real key to this historically (talking about all nations now) has been to give the tax breaks to the poorest first, which is where I believe the country should be headed and where I fundamentally diverge from the corporate barstewards in the tory party.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Indeed. The whole private landlords getting council money is pretty much just a scam, and one easily avoided by investing in social housing stock.
Or we could just build more houses in general. Or implement tax policies that relieve the pressure on the poorest. A lot of private landlords actually refuse people on housing benefit because they're an unreliable source of payment, which in turn drives up the cost for everyone else.
Kilkrazy wrote:This is what has led to Trumpism, the Brexit vote, and the revival of the hard left. Vast numbers of people no longer believe in neo-liberal market capitalism because it hasn't worked for them.
Probably more to do with 1) Hillary being an appalling candidate. Compare her to the adoration for someone Michelle Obama, 2) the state of the EU as a barmey, ineffective and unecessary political body which I for one will be glad to be shot of, coupled with governments not taking the immigration debate seriously and thus not engaging with those opposed to it in an effective manner. Politicos could have done a lot more to actually acknowledge that immigration has its negatives as well as its positives (something which they refused to believe and just stuck their fingers in their ears) and had they actually tried to engage the diehard racists they might have been able to put across a more cogent case about the positives of immigration. 3) the hard left has rebounded mainly because young voters are well meaning, if somewhat idealistic, and haven't had the misfortune of living as adults under labour rule. They can see the tories are a rotten bunch, but they've yet to learn just how bad Labour is.
To answer your question, because of a generation of governments who believed that the free market is automatically superior to any community or social effort, local councils are not allowed to buy or build new council housing stock.
Actually they are. In addition, when a private company builds new houses it has to build a certain number of "affordable homes" as part of the deal written in to the planning approval, or if such homes would be inappropriate due to insufficient space they can instead be required to pay a hefty sum (as much as 40% from the proceeds of their sales) to the council to fund affordable housing schemes.
Whirlwind wrote:
Because it is illegal for Councils to make a profit. They can only ever cover their overheads and costs. This all came about because of the pre1980s and 1990s Tory government (no surprise there) where they effectively forced Councils to dump anything that was profitable into the private sector.
Councils are allowed to make a profit. They have no shareholders though, so the money essentially just stays with them and gets recycled back into their budget.
AndrewGPaul wrote:There are "Housing Associations", which are (I believe) non-profit organisations doing the same job as council houses (Glasgow either hived off the housing department as the GHA, or sold their housing stock to them, I'm not sure of the details), which appear to be building new public housing, but nowhere near enough of it.
Yeah, housing associations are basically just an arms length body of the council used for managing their housing stock etc.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:The biggest issue right now is that Buy To Let is all but fool proof. No matter how you pay for the property, you're allowed to charge the mortgage plus X% in rent - minimising any personal exposure to risk.
That needs to change. Rent Control in London alone would soon see this bizarre fetish of the middle classes die off, because the 'only going to get more expensive' safety net is removed.
And when London gets back to sanity, the home counties will too. Knock on effect, and housing becomes something you live in again, not a 'retirement investment'.
Fool proof? Not by a mile. Tenants trash the flat? Not much a landlord can do as the tenants likely don't have the cash even if the landlord opted to sue. Tenants refuse to pay the rent? Call the baliffs and hope the tenant has something valuable that can be sold off to try and recover the missing payments (if they're not paying the rent, chances are they don't, and once they get a warning from the court the savvy ones can easily offload their assets like a car or a nice TV to friends and family to hold on to for the time being). As for rent control, now you want the government to start dictating what someones property is worth? Most of them can't even fill out their expenses properly, now you want them to start dictating market prices?
Whirlwind wrote:So a 5% tax on a London investment flat worth £1m would be an additional tax of £50,000 per year which should be enough to stop them being used as an investment portfolio.
What do you imagine they'll turn into suddenly? Low cost housing? If it's worth £1m then it's far beyond the reach of most people already.
On a lighter note here are two Christmas cracker jokes that are doing the rounds.
Why was Theresa May sacked as nativity manager???? She couldn’t run a stable government.
Theresa May has asked Santa for a home makeover this year..... First thing on the list was a new cabinet
Those were actually pretty good
Whirlwind wrote:In other news. A well run state owned franchise rail network now costing the tax payer billions because the Tories put it into private hands....well done folks, well done (sarcasm!)
Not costing, might cost. Big difference. All depends on whether the tories let them squirm out and what the next franchisee offers to pay (you could end up in a situation where the company taking over the franchise pays more). And the state run company was many things, but "well run" is perhaps a bit generous. They had lower customer satisfaction ratings than Virgin on the West Coast mainline, which is saying something (the Virgin group of companies have a unique talent for being awful at basically everything they attempt). Part of the great myth about East Coast was that it was this super profitable company that was pouring money back to the taxpayer. In reality they had a number of advantages in their favour.
1) The previous franchise had spent quite a lot of money on upgrades in the run up to 2009 when East Coast took over and which East Coast inherited for free.
2) East Coast subsequently went on to invest the grand sum of £0 in upgrades over the six years (really five) that they ran the franchise. A big part of the bid process for those wanting to take over the franchise was how much they were prepared to invest. Think Virgin East Coast put in something like £100 million+ just in investment.
3) East Coast managed to pull off something that no other rail franchise has been able to; they convinced the government to allow them to significantly reduce the amount of services they had to provide, particularly the unprofitabe ones. This alone was probably their greatest key to success in that they were able to do the main thing that people normally acuse the private sector of trying to do i.e. hive off all the profitable bits and dump the unprofitable ones. If every train franchise was allowed to do the same (as they should be) they'd have blown East Coast out of the water.
I'll never understand why everyone is so keen to see a return to British Rail, an organisation that inspires more hate than GW. The railways were terrible when they were nationalised.
If you mention second edition 40k I will find you, and I will bore you to tears talking about how "things were better in my day, let me tell ya..." Might even do it if you mention 4th/5th/6th WHFB
bouncingboredom wrote:Fool proof? Not by a mile. Tenants trash the flat? Not much a landlord can do as the tenants likely don't have the cash even if the landlord opted to sue. Tenants refuse to pay the rent? Call the baliffs and hope the tenant has something valuable that can be sold off to try and recover the missing payments (if they're not paying the rent, chances are they don't, and once they get a warning from the court the savvy ones can easily offload their assets like a car or a nice TV to friends and family to hold on to for the time being). As for rent control, now you want the government to start dictating what someones property is worth? Most of them can't even fill out their expenses properly, now you want them to start dictating market prices?
Cor, if only there was such a thing as Landlord insurance.
Oh wait. There is. And yes, such policies will cover such things. Never mind the cost of said policy, just tack it onto the rent....
Automatically Appended Next Post: Rent control need only be tied to the average income for the area.
Yes, exclusive areas will always be a thing - I myself happen to live in a very pleasant private road, and pay a small premium on my rent for that and the off-street parking. But we shouldn't see sky-high rents in already deprived areas.
Believe it or not, the Tories kind of had the right idea with Housing Benefit caps, but again just went about it in such a backwards, self defeating way. Essentially, we can't continue with 'think of a number, and the benefits office will cough up'. That's a basis that harms tax payers, private renters, the buyers market and social housing tenants. The only person benefitting is the landlord. Everyone else suffers.
Consider Tunbridge Wells, where I live. Having worked in the town most of my adult life, I can personally confirm that wages aren't any higher than the rest of the country. Shame about the 'pretty much London' prices. When I last worked in the town, I worked 40 hours a week. By the time I'd paid for my shoebox flat and all bills, I had maybe £200 to myself at the end of the month. I've since started working in London, and seriously increased my income. My rent is now £800 a month - yeah, I can't think of anyone on minimum wage who could afford this flat, and it's by no means expensive for the area, despite the slight premium I mentioned earlier (others in the same street go for £1000 a month, give or take).
It has to stop. And rent controls are the best way forward.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/13 09:50:07
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Herzlos wrote: Other state owned railways run fine, so I don't think state ownership is the problem
The railways are essentially state-owned - or at least state-funded. Network Rail is state-owned after the disaster that was Railtrack (directly resulting in fatal rail crashes), and the government issues the franchises and has influence over pricing and service levels. It's just done really inefficiently in order to funnel our money to their mates.
Several "privatised" rail franchises are in fact directly state-owned. Just owned by a different state. Abellio (who run the Scotrail franchise and others) are the Dutch rail service.
The problem with state-owned services in the UK isn't that they're state-owned. It's that they're run by a government who think that things like the NHS and public utilities should be run for the benefit of their cronies/masters than for the benefit of the public. So they underfund them, run them down and when people complain about the service, they say "well, if we sell it off, it'll get better".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/13 10:10:48
If anyone has missed it (it's been doing the rounds on social media), James O'Brian has a brilliant conversation with a leave voter that blames seeing too many brown faces in hospitals and supermarkets for voting leave.
I do wonder how many 10's, 100's of thousands, millions even thought the same....
Thebiggesthat wrote: If anyone has missed it (it's been doing the rounds on social media), James O'Brian has a brilliant conversation with a leave voter that blames seeing too many brown faces in hospitals and supermarkets for voting leave.
I do wonder how many 10's, 100's of thousands, millions even thought the same....
It's totally possible, especially in the more deprived parts of the UK.
However, seeing as many remainers are keen to tar all us leavers with the 'racist bigot' brush (as opposed to me, I just hate everyone! Get off my lawn!) I don't think there have actually been any large studies into why people voted leave. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons.
However due to the great split that Brexit has caused, I also doubt that we'll see any such studies.
It's a bit like the Trump effect. A lot of people just assume that Trump voters are also racist bigots. But they are probably not. I can easily assume plenty of them were disillusioned people, and I know a few that despite the fact that Trump has backward views in some areas, at least he is honest about his backward views and that is better than someone who is opaque.
No doubt there are some people who voted leave who are racist, but racist people can vote either way. I'm sure there were many IndyRef voters who voted to leave out of racism towards the English, but that's just something that happens and it can't really be changed.
I mean I'm no social expert, but I do honestly think that Brexit is just many years of resentment and anger that sort of boiled over into a great big pot. Plenty of builders and 'traditional working man' probably do feel threatened by immigrants taking our jobs. A lot of factory jobs tend to go to foreigners. Is it because Brits are lazy workers? Not at all, but foreigners are far less likely to complain about working conditions than your average Brit is. You can pay them less and get away with it. But this sort of resentment has bubbled through society, people are annoyed about the Government talking about them and not too them. Look at the last few General Elections, where the choice has been "The Tories." or "The Tories, but in Red!" and you can see why people started building up a large amount of voter apathy.
Indeed, it's easy to lay the blame on Brexiteers, but not a lot is said and done about voter apathy. How do we get people to actually be interested in politics? And when you combine them to the Brexiteers, who have a very large group who either wanted to leave the EU, or simply didn't give a crap which way the pendulum swings.
So we just need to convince these voters to care. Which is going to be pretty hard considering how easily people insult and dismiss people who voted the other way.
DS:90-S+G+++M++B-IPw40k03+D+A++/fWD-R++T(T)DM+ Warmachine MKIII record 39W/0D/6L
In fact I would go further and say that even if if a proportion of Leave voters are racist, so are a proportion of Remain voters and perhaps simply understood better that the EU is totally dominated by white people anyway.
Either way it doesn't matter, because without some social infomation strategy to lead people away from racist views, the issue will not be resolved.
The trouble with the rise of the hard right and bigots like the one calling James O'Brian is the right wing press have been excusing the impact of certain policies by telling people it's all because of immigration, presenting it solely as a societal ill.
And it works. If you're some poor sod in a former mining town, you likely have pretty bleak prospects. When you see someone of a different skin tone, you're first thought isn't 'wonder if they're a Nurse or Doctor at the local hospital, on account we have a national need for such skilled workers', its 'bet they've taken my job. The Daily Heil, Scum and Express all say so'.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Facebook's investigation into Russian 'influence' during the Brexit referendum concludes that Russian 'influence' didn't add up to a bucket of horsegak.
The Russian connection was the biggest load of straw clutching I have ever seen in my lifetime.
I'm only surprised that the North Koreans haven't been blamed for Brexit.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Facebook's investigation into Russian 'influence' during the Brexit referendum concludes that Russian 'influence' didn't add up to a bucket of horsegak.
The Russian connection was the biggest load of straw clutching I have ever seen in my lifetime.
I'm only surprised that the North Koreans haven't been blamed for Brexit.
I've got to ask but did you read the article or just the headlines. It doesn't say anything of the sort. It states that there were minimal paid ads in the US election. Which is not really a surprise -- after all I don't think even the Russians would be daft enough to put. "Don't vote Hilary she's bad for Russia. Sponsored by the Russian state department"
So in case you didn't get past the first sentence I've quoted the actual MPs statement below:-
In response, Damian Collins, MP and chair of the digital, culture and media select committee, who had previously written to both Facebook and Twitter, seeking information about Russian influence, said: "I asked Facebook to provide the committee with details relating to any adverts and pages paid for, or set up by Russian-linked accounts."
"In their response to the Electoral Commission, Facebook responded only with regards to funded advertisements to audiences in the UK from the around 470 accounts and pages run by the Russian based Internet Research Agency, which had been active during the US Presidential election."
"It would appear that no work has been done by Facebook to look for Russian activity around the EU referendum, other than from funded advertisements from those accounts that had already been identified as part of the US Senate's investigation."
"No work has been done by Facebook to look for other fake accounts and pages that could be linked to Russian-backed agencies and which were active during the EU referendum, as I requested."
So there was no information about Wrexit, only covered sites already released as part of the US investigation and didn't even consider account fake accounts. You are reading what you want to hear rather than reading the article...
No doubt there are some people who voted leave who are racist, but racist people can vote either way. I'm sure there were many IndyRef voters who voted to leave out of racism towards the English, but that's just something that happens and it can't really be changed
The NatCen Panel post-Referendum survey asked what people thought the current priority for government should be. Those who voted Remain were significantly more likely to select education, poverty and inequality, and the economy as their concerns. Those who voted Leave were significantly more likely to select immigration. The biggest single distinguishing factor in terms of general priorities for government is immigration (47% of Leave voters compared to 16% Remain voters).
So yes there were distinct bigotry undertones to the vote. That doesn't mean everyone is, but it was a significant issue and as I have always alluded to that the actual racist/bigoted elements likely swung the vote. If there was no immigration I would surmise we would still be in the EU. On the other hand we would be a lot poorer and worse off overall.
I mean I'm no social expert, but I do honestly think that Brexit is just many years of resentment and anger that sort of boiled over into a great big pot. Plenty of builders and 'traditional working man' probably do feel threatened by immigrants taking our jobs. A lot of factory jobs tend to go to foreigners. Is it because Brits are lazy workers? Not at all, but foreigners are far less likely to complain about working conditions than your average Brit is. You can pay them less and get away with it. But this sort of resentment has bubbled through society, people are annoyed about the Government talking about them and not too them. Look at the last few General Elections, where the choice has been "The Tories." or "The Tories, but in Red!" and you can see why people started building up a large amount of voter apathy.
The report also confirms this, those worse off were more likely to vote Wrexit. There is no doubt that people left behind by the economy are feeling sore and lashed out. The irony is that Cameron and the Tories deliberately ran the poor into the ground and then were surprised when there was a backlash.
Whirlwind wrote:
Because it is illegal for Councils to make a profit. They can only ever cover their overheads and costs. This all came about because of the pre1980s and 1990s Tory government (no surprise there) where they effectively forced Councils to dump anything that was profitable into the private sector.
Councils are allowed to make a profit. They have no shareholders though, so the money essentially just stays with them and gets recycled back into their budget.
You are about 15 years out of date. So to help you with your lack of legislation knowledge and basic false facts.
Local Government Act 2003, Section 93(3):-
The power under subsection (1) is subject to a duty to secure that, taking one financial year with another, the income from charges under that subsection does not exceed the costs of provision.
It is illegal for a Council to make a profit (i.e. income can't exceed the cost of providing that service).
The only exceptions that I know of are, if the Council set up a wholly owned company then the *company* can make a profit and a share goes back to the Council (but that's not really the Council making a profit and is quite rare and limited to large infrastructure projects); and also under the Controlled Waste Regulations a Waste Collection Authority can make a profit from business waste collections.
Otherwise no you are completely wrong Councils can't make a profit. They can however recover costs and for some areas these can be significant (especially when you add on all the on-costs)
Whirlwind wrote:So a 5% tax on a London investment flat worth £1m would be an additional tax of £50,000 per year which should be enough to stop them being used as an investment portfolio.
What do you imagine they'll turn into suddenly? Low cost housing? If it's worth £1m then it's far beyond the reach of most people already.
Yes they will continue to be expensive, but you remove the incentive for them to be bought solely to be an investment. Therefore the wealthy but not wealthy investors can afford to buy them and that will move all the way up the chain as there is less of a driver forcing people out of the city.
On the other hand maybe if they left these properties empty for too long (say 3 months continuously) then they have to allow homeless to live there free of rent. That might help solve one of the other scandals of this country.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2017/12/13 19:17:11
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
I read the article Whirlwind, and all I can hear is the clunk of goalposts being moved around.
Hand on heart, and I say this to everybody on dakka, I cannot for the life of me see how Brexit benefits Russia. I really can't.
It's an open secret that Britain has always been the awkward squad in the EU, and now that Britain is leaving, the EU can push on with more integration, that Britain had always been opposed too, with a possible EU defence force in the offering.
Given that the EU was opposed to Russia in the Ukraine, how does an Brussels controlled EU defence force help Russia?
It doesn't.
Britain is still in NATO, Britain still has its veto at the UN, and Britain is still a hard place to invade, in the unlikely event that the Russians considered this.
And if Russia did attack or invade Britain, France, by sheer geographical proximity, would consider that a clear and present danger to France.
As I said weeks ago, we as a nation have had 40 years of anti-EEC/EU media headlines from the Mail/Sun/Express, and a hardcore of Brexit supporters that have been around since the 1970s.
These all pre-date Putin's premiership by decades. Feth me, Jeremy Corbyn has been anti-EU since the 1970s. Is he in on it as well?
The Moscow connection to Brexit is the biggest steaming pile of bullgak I've heard in a long time. It does not tally up with facts or logic.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I read the article Whirlwind, and all I can hear is the clunk of goalposts being moved around.
Hand on heart, and I say this to everybody on dakka, I cannot for the life of me see how Brexit benefits Russia. I really can't.
No goal posts being moved. No one ever accused Russia of providing paid for adverts online. What has been stated is that they used mass social media messages to 'carpet bomb' areas they thought were likely to be susceptible to wavering without any indication of the source they were coming from. We've already had research discussed on this forum that there is some evidence that points back to Russia, if it was easy then we would have seen it and it (likely) would have turned people against leaving (just as Obama getting involved polarised views when he mentioned it). To put it in paid adverts is the same as going over to the enemy line giving them a map of where you've hidden your tanks.
Of course Russia would prefer to have a divided Europe, that means responses would be less unanimous. It's the proverbial divide and conquer, little bit at a time with no consistent voice to hold it back (noting that this isn't the people we are talking about but exKGB Putin that's that problem).
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
The government has lost the vote about the Brexit bill amendment.
This means there will be a legal right for Parliament to have the final say on the treaty.
A genuine victory for the sovereignty of parliament!
Yeah was pleased to see this, but it's not over. The government still gets to write the amendment and carry on flaying the backs of those rebelling. I actually feel sorry for them standing up to May.
I imagine the Tory party HQ sounds something like this this evening.
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
The government has lost the vote about the Brexit bill amendment.
This means there will be a legal right for Parliament to have the final say on the treaty.
A genuine victory for the sovereignty of parliament!
1. Brexit strengthens the EU's goal of ever, closer union, because the main opposition to this is leaving. A more integrated EU, with its foreign policy in Ukraine, is more of a threat to Russia.
2. Let's say for argument's sake that you're right about a weaker Britain - it's still stronger than most other NATO countries, and of course, it's still in NATO.
3. Cyprus and Malta are EU members, and they're none too fussy about Russian money in their banks, so that's an obvious elephant in the room, and if the EU is as democratic as people say it is, then Cyprus and Malta could block any EU attempt at cracking down on this, anyway.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I read the article Whirlwind, and all I can hear is the clunk of goalposts being moved around.
Hand on heart, and I say this to everybody on dakka, I cannot for the life of me see how Brexit benefits Russia. I really can't.
No goal posts being moved. No one ever accused Russia of providing paid for adverts online. What has been stated is that they used mass social media messages to 'carpet bomb' areas they thought were likely to be susceptible to wavering without any indication of the source they were coming from. We've already had research discussed on this forum that there is some evidence that points back to Russia, if it was easy then we would have seen it and it (likely) would have turned people against leaving (just as Obama getting involved polarised views when he mentioned it). To put it in paid adverts is the same as going over to the enemy line giving them a map of where you've hidden your tanks.
Of course Russia would prefer to have a divided Europe, that means responses would be less unanimous. It's the proverbial divide and conquer, little bit at a time with no consistent voice to hold it back (noting that this isn't the people we are talking about but exKGB Putin that's that problem).
I have an elderly father, and an elderly uncle, both in their 80s, who've never been on a pc or a laptop in their lives. Both of them would struggle with a VHS player.
Both voted Brexit, so I have no idea where they were getting their 'Russian' social media messages from. And they've been reading the same local newspaper for decades, which incidentally, supported Remain.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/13 20:32:32
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I read the article Whirlwind, and all I can hear is the clunk of goalposts being moved around.
Hand on heart, and I say this to everybody on dakka, I cannot for the life of me see how Brexit benefits Russia. I really can't.
No goal posts being moved. No one ever accused Russia of providing paid for adverts online. What has been stated is that they used mass social media messages to 'carpet bomb' areas they thought were likely to be susceptible to wavering without any indication of the source they were coming from. We've already had research discussed on this forum that there is some evidence that points back to Russia, if it was easy then we would have seen it and it (likely) would have turned people against leaving (just as Obama getting involved polarised views when he mentioned it). To put it in paid adverts is the same as going over to the enemy line giving them a map of where you've hidden your tanks.
Of course Russia would prefer to have a divided Europe, that means responses would be less unanimous. It's the proverbial divide and conquer, little bit at a time with no consistent voice to hold it back (noting that this isn't the people we are talking about but exKGB Putin that's that problem).
Don't all nations inteligence services do this - isn't that part of their job?
Re Russia - Likely to be much more interested in the EU moving away from NATO given that the core European countries are either unwilling or unable to even spend the money they pledged to spend on tehri own defence. Germany is terrified of taking the lead in this area for obvious reasons which only leaves France which although willing to do stuff - has a colonial past even worse than ours.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/13 20:45:56
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I read the article Whirlwind, and all I can hear is the clunk of goalposts being moved around.
Hand on heart, and I say this to everybody on dakka, I cannot for the life of me see how Brexit benefits Russia. I really can't.
No goal posts being moved. No one ever accused Russia of providing paid for adverts online. What has been stated is that they used mass social media messages to 'carpet bomb' areas they thought were likely to be susceptible to wavering without any indication of the source they were coming from. We've already had research discussed on this forum that there is some evidence that points back to Russia, if it was easy then we would have seen it and it (likely) would have turned people against leaving (just as Obama getting involved polarised views when he mentioned it). To put it in paid adverts is the same as going over to the enemy line giving them a map of where you've hidden your tanks.
Of course Russia would prefer to have a divided Europe, that means responses would be less unanimous. It's the proverbial divide and conquer, little bit at a time with no consistent voice to hold it back (noting that this isn't the people we are talking about but exKGB Putin that's that problem).
Don't all nations inteligence services do this - isn't that part of their job?
They do, and it is, and it's ironic to talk of Russian meddling when you consider what we, The West, were doing inside 1990s Russia.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
