There's a fairly interesting article on t'BBC site which points out that 56% of those living in poverty in this country are actually homeowners.
In the dreaded Have Your Say section below the article, a chap identified as "Piers, Surrey" says what a lot of people are surely thinking:
quote:This definition of poverty devalues the concept and draws attention from genuine suffering. Somebody who owns a home will almost certainly have equity which they can cash in at any point. They may have overstretched themselves, but this is poor financial planning and not in any meaningful sense poverty.
...and in response, "Paul, Worthing" says:
quote:The points that Piers, hasn't taken into account are twofold: firstly, having equity in a property is not like having a piggy bank, to be raided at will; in order to release equity you either have to sell the property, or remortgage it. The former is no good if you cannot then get anywhere else to live (housing authorities will not re-house those deemed to have made themselves homeless voluntarily, and in some circumstances include in that category people whose properties have been repossessed), and the latter is only an option if a mortgage lender is prepared to advance you the money, at a monthly repayment you can afford; secondly, that an unforeseen and catastrophic change in personal circumstances (which can happen to any one of us, irrespective of how well-insured we are) is not "poor financial planning". Most of the hardship described on this page has resulted from unforeseen changes in circumstances, such as ill-health; not everyone has the luxury of paid sick leave, and income protection insurance is often prohibitively expensive.
Probably fair points from both contributors, I guess, but what do people here think? At what point is it right to consider someone as genuinely "living in poverty", as opposed to having done some "poor financial planning".
Patched Footwear
We completely overstretched ourselves to buy our house at the beginning of last year, although we knew what we were doing - deliberately buying the most expensive house we could possibly afford in the hope of keeping up with London prices for when we move back. In typical fashion, the day after we moved in property prices started to fall for the first time in 15 years or something. The value of our house has probably gone up a little bit since we moved there, but nothing like what we'd hoped, and there's thousands of properties on the market now and few buyers.
All that means that if we get in a spot of financial bother, like if my contract doesn't get renewed and it takes ages to find another job, then we'll be in genuine trouble. As it goes, even now we are wearing down our saving each month, never quite bringing in enough to cover all the bills. I stopped paying into my pension recently in an attempt to balance the books better.
The stupid thing is that if we did sell up we'd have enough money to buy a house outright in somewhere like Birmingham or Sunderland or something (er, that's a complete guess, but I think those are cheap areas?) But that would be the start of one of those slippery slope things you hear about. It would mean living in an area with, almost certainly, lower education standards and all the other things which Daily Mail readers are terrified of. Property prices are so much lower in those places simply because opportunities to make a good living are so much lower too. And once you're in there, it's not going to be easy to get out again.
Should more support be somehow given to the kind of people who take the risks and make the sacrifices to do the best for their families and then get into trouble, or is it tough shit, and you aint actually poor till you're living ten people in one room down by the docks and selling your old clothes at the local car boot sale?
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Poverty is about lack of choice, surely? Unpalatable as it might be, a homeowner, if hard-up, has the option to sell their home and realise some money.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
That article seems a bit woolly - stating that poverty is defined as people earning 60% less than the average income is all very well, but then it seems to suggest that first time homeowners are stretched by their mortgage payments which leave them with little disposable income. Surely this has nothing to do with what they earn?
Also, this made me laff...
quote: Many can't afford what many people consider to be essentials such as a second pair of shoes.
Up until April this year both my pairs of shoes were way fucked. My DMs were literally falling apart and had been for some time. I maintained I "couldn't afford" to replace them (money better spent on booze; computer games).I only really replaced them because Octavia begged me to. If it wasn't for her I reckon I'd still be wearing (what was left) of them. I don't think I considered myself impoverished. I also don't really think two pairs of shoes is really 'essential'. One pair is enough. I dunno. Not being able to afford a meal is poverty; not being able to afford a second pair of shoes is just... I dunno. Annoying.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask: Poverty is about lack of choice, surely? Unpalatable as it might be, a homeowner, if hard-up, has the option to sell their home and realise some money.
But it's an option which will be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to recover from. You sell your house and have, say, 30 grand in equity. What do you do then? Start renting somewhere? That will cost more than the mortgage payments on an equivalent size place, and you'll never see the rent money again. You won't get benefit payments for your rent because you've got a stack of cash in your bank account.
If you've scrimped and saved for years to buy your own place then how does it help anyone to just sell up and throw it all away? I'm not suggesting that someone with a thousand pound a month mortgage payment and council taxes to go with it should just get that all paid by the DSS (or whatever they're called this week), but people who have bought a little council house or a weeny first-time buyer's flat shouldn't be abandoned when they are obviously the types that are doing their best to improve their lot on their own and not to scrounge off the state.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: you'll never see the rent money again.
Well, durrr. That's renting for you.
No matter how hard the choices. No matter how 'unfair', you can't be considered poor if you own (or part-own) a property worth tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Sometimes things go wrong. Your investment may go down as well as up.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: That article seems a bit woolly - stating that poverty is defined as people earning 60% less than the average income is all very well, but then it seems to suggest that first time homeowners are stretched by their mortgage payments which leave them with little disposable income. Surely this has nothing to do with what they earn?
Also, mortgage interest rates are incredibly low at the moment, but people are having to borrow huge amounts just to get started with their own property. If interest rates rise to the sort of level we had to live with in the 80s and much of the 90s then there will be instant mass poverty in this country. There will be no one to buy houses except at a huge loss to the seller, and that will impact on everyone up the line, even people who have practically no mortgage left to pay off.
But, yes, I do agree that the actual level of one's income does not necessarily relate to how much one has to spare, if that's what you were saying? I also think that's largely the point of the article, that "Homeowner" = "Ooh, get him with his buckets of wedge, he's bought his own house while I'm living in a council flat", when if fact it just means the homeowner is spending the same money in a different way - no fly-away holidays or designer clothes or meals out, y'know, that sort of thing.
Posted by herbs (Member # 101) on :
Yah, I was just about to say that BM. Deciding to own, rather than rent, a property is really just about greed. We want a long-term investment we can sell to pay for our retirement, or whatever. If that investment then becomes too expensive to maintain, just as if it were a shares portfolio or something, it's just tough titties.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask:
quote:Originally posted by dang65: you'll never see the rent money again.
Well, durrr. That's renting for you.
Yes, that'll be why I said it then, won't it.
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask: Sometimes things go wrong. Your investment may go down as well as up.
While someone living on benefits never makes an investment, never takes a risk to improve the future chances of their family, and still gets looked after at all times?
Where's the justice in that?
A homeowner is not entitled to housing benefit, even if it would be cheaper for the state to cover the mortgage payments for the period of claiming than to pay for a council tennant's flat.
This is the catch within our society, that there is always a requirement for one section of society to pay out at all times and never ever be paid back in order to support another section of society which receives at all times and never ever pays out.
I think we all understand that, but why is it also the case that the ones paying out are also the most sneered at and disrespected!?
[ 01.08.2005, 07:49: Message edited by: dang65 ]
Posted by Vogon Poetess (Member # 164) on :
I don't really know about all this grown up stuff. The more I hear about it, the scarier it sounds, to be honest.
Just looking at your reasons for knowingly getting yourself into your present situation, Dang: "deliberately buying the most expensive house we could possibly afford in the hope of keeping up with London prices for when we move back". Essentially, you took a gamble on the future state of the market. If the gamble doesn't quite pay off, well, you have to live with it, don't you?
I'm not really sure how much of a priority helping such families out should be. I'm getting the impression from some posts that as a homeowner you've reached some kind of mythic status, and to go back to renting or buy somewhere smaller is a slip back down into peasant status and inevitable degradation. Is it really that important to have a mortgage?
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by herbs: Yah, I was just about to say that BM. Deciding to own, rather than rent, a property is really just about greed.
It is cheaper to make mortgage payments on a property than to make rental payments on the same property. A mortgage is quite likely to be the only rational way to afford a place to live for many people. And you're not just handing your cash over to some slum landlord, never to be seen again.
It's just common sense to buy a property, which is why so many people strive to do so. I'm sure greed enters into it in some cases, but honestly, that can't be the case for most people can it? It's just part of life and living, not greed!
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65:
Where's the justice in that?
It's a gamble, dude. If things work out, which they do the majority of the time, the homeowner will do very well for themselves. Roof over the head, bought and paid for, retirement nest-egg, blah-blah-blah. Sometimes you don't win. It's gambling. You can't expect the government to bankroll you if you're speculating to make money. Even if the fundamental reason for buying a property is to put a roof over your head you can't escape the fact that your participating in a speculative financial venture, that's why benefits won't (and shouldn't) cover your IOUs.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: Just looking at your reasons for knowingly getting yourself into your present situation, Dang: "deliberately buying the most expensive house we could possibly afford in the hope of keeping up with London prices for when we move back". Essentially, you took a gamble on the future state of the market. If the gamble doesn't quite pay off, well, you have to live with it, don't you?
Difficult one, see. If I'd stayed renting a bedsit in Exeter and was on the income I'm on now then I could be eating out every night in the kind of places Black Mask tells us about and going on the sort of round the World tours that Vikram updates us on occasionally, but I've spent my money on buying a nice house, and that hasn't left me with any spare cash. My choice, and I can sell up if I want and I'll have that money back in my pocket again.
Thing is, it is the family home for two adults and four children. Children that are settled into local schools and working hard to become honest tax payers themselves, no doubt.
How does it benefit society to just ignore a family like ours if we hit the same sort of problems that any other family could hit at any time? Why say, "Yeah, just flog your house and move somewhere cheap. Off you go then."? This just cuts off a stream of tax coming in to the government as soon as I get a new job or recover from illness or whatever.
As I say, I do understand that this is tough shit and it's how things work, but I don't understand why it's imposed with such a gleeful sneer from the rest of the population when it's the people that have taken the risks to get better pay and larger houses that clearly pay for so much of the upkeep of the country.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask: Sometimes you don't win. It's gambling. You can't expect the government to bankroll you if you're speculating to make money.
But I can expect the government to help themselves to the profits when the gamble works out, and to not pay me a state pension because I've got a nest-egg because I took risks when I was younger. Yes, that all makes perfect sense.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
You should write to your MP, Dang.
Posted by Louche (Member # 450) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: As I say, I do understand that this is tough shit and it's how things work, but I don't understand why it's imposed with such a gleeful sneer from the rest of the population when it's the people that have taken the risks to get better pay and larger houses that clearly pay for so much of the upkeep of the country.
Is it imposed with gleeful sneer? Or is it more that it's a lol to see the arrogant take a fall? All those poor me, I lost my house posts on the BBC sound rather arrogant and smug to me. Makes me kind of want to say oh, dear, darling, did you decide that the £50 a month they quoted you for unemployment and critical illness was better spent elsewhere? Buying a house is a gamble but you can minimise the risks. Easily.
Oh and Dang, there's a five bedroom family home, detached, nice garden, for sale near my mate. £175,000. And I know for the fact that the local school is class, I've been there and seen all their awards. Just because it's in regeneration area in Salford doesn't neccessarily mean that your kids'll go to rack and ruin.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: Yes, that all makes perfect sense.
Yes, yes, it does.
You took risks to make money. The government tax you for that, you know? Making money.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Louche: Is it imposed with gleeful sneer? Or is it more that it's a lol to see the arrogant take a fall? All those poor me, I lost my house posts on the BBC sound rather arrogant and smug to me.
Now this is an interesting point. You see, I have a theory that most people don't actually have a fucking clue what other people's circumstances actually are, but they think they have just going by appearances.
If someone has a big house then your instant impression is: wealthy parents, public school, university, well-paid job in daddy's company, inherit enormous house, have nanny and three cars and swimming pool. Or a variation on that theme.
If someone lives in a council house then the impression is: alcoholic parents, state schooling (occasionally if bovvered), on the dole, bit of this, bit of that, pregnant at 12, fifth child at 17, on drugs.
Most people would instantly deny thinking that about council tennants, but the large homeowner stereotype is rampant and unrestrained. And blatantly untrue.
Me - Wealthy parents? Nope. Dad a school teacher, mum a nurse. Public school? Yes! One year, completely pointless, hated it, moved to comprehensive. University? No. Never even did A-levels. Only got a couple of CSEs in fact. Well-paid job in daddy's company? No. Worked in restaurants and warehouses, then as a phone engineer, ended up as a web developer. Inherit enormous house? No. All parents still alive and well. May one day inherit some cash. Will be an enormous relief on finances if ever we do. Have nanny? No. Never been able to afford childcare except for nursery place for first child when we were both working. Three cars? One car, one bike. May be selling car soon! Swimming pool? We've got a muddy puddle in the garden at the moment.
Friend of ours in council house - Alcoholic parents? Nope. Father very well-off but doesn't support daughter beyond the odd hand-out to buy a new car or something. State schooling? Yes. One of the best state schools in the country. A-levels, but not university. On the dole? No. Has increasingly successful flower business, supplying hanging baskets to local pubs amongst other things. Very good income, as demonstrated by her and her children's clothing and regular holidays. Bit of this, bit of that, pregnant at 12? Pregnant at 25, split from father but he's still around a lot. Fifth child at 17? Second child at 32 with steady partner. On drugs? She does spend a lot of time in the boozer. Which I would if I had the cash.
Probably both exceptions to the rule though, eh?
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask:
quote:Originally posted by dang65: Yes, that all makes perfect sense.
Yes, yes, it does.
You took risks to make money. The government tax you for that, you know? Making money.
Yes, as I keep saying, I do understand this and I don't actually expect the government to cover my family if our "gamble" fails. It's just that I'd have thought it would be worth their while encouraging more people to get to the position where the government can cream off a load profit. At the moment it often appears to be quite the opposite.
Posted by Vogon Poetess (Member # 164) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: [ Thing is, it is the family home for two adults and four children. Children that are settled into local schools and working hard to become honest tax payers themselves, no doubt.
How does it benefit society to just ignore a family like ours if we hit the same sort of problems that any other family could hit at any time?
Well, ya see, you seem like a really nice bloke, and I'm sure your kids are great and will grow up to be a credit to you. I just don't really see how it's my business whether they grow up in rented or mortgaged accommodation, and why my taxes should help to give YOU security, when I can't possibly afford to join the property ladder and will open up an envelope containing a picture of Tony Blair sticking his fingers up at me instead of a pension on my 60th (or 85th, whatever retirement age will be by then) birthday.
*warning baby rant level has been triggered*
On my Open Uni summer school the other week, as well as learning that locusts carry on twitching for literally hours after they've been decapitated, I discovered that if I'd had a kid and didn't live with the father, I'd get my Open Uni courses FOR FREE, as well as the free flat and free year off work you seem to get for spreading your legs. I know I've always voted Liberal and stuff, but I've come to the conclusion that I'm going to spend the rest of my working life paying for other people's comfort and security, whilst receiving nothing myself. So far I have:
- worked as a UK taxpayer for 4 years, never taking a day off sick EVER.
- not claimed benefits whilst unemployed, because I didn't desparately need to.
- funded my own further education.
- cost the NHS one smear test, two mole removals, one filling and one set of childhood injections in 27 years.
- contributed £0 to the groaning burden of national credit card debt.
I mean, I don't think single mums should be flogged thrown out on the street, or pregnant teens be forced into abortions, and I support helping those who want to get into eduction or work, but, BUT I just want a little bit of recognition of the fact that I'm a respectable upstanding citizen who costs the state nothing.
JUST A FUCKING THANK YOU CARD WOULD BE NICE!
Where were we, help for those with mortgages and families? Oh right. Yeah. Worker Drone V Poetess 1978#19668459954B gives its consent to empty its bank account to support hive larvae. Take it. Take it all.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65:
Me - Wealthy parents? Nope. Dad a school teacher, mum a nurse. Public school? Yes! One year, completely pointless, hated it, moved to comprehensive. University? No. Never even did A-levels. Only got a couple of CSEs in fact. Well-paid job in daddy's company? No. Worked in restaurants and warehouses, then as a phone engineer, ended up as a web developer. Inherit enormous house? No. All parents still alive and well. May one day inherit some cash. Will be an enormous relief on finances if ever we do. Have nanny? No. Never been able to afford childcare except for nursery place for first child when we were both working. Three cars? One car, one bike. May be selling car soon! Swimming pool? We've got a muddy puddle in the garden at the moment.
Friend of ours in council house - Alcoholic parents? Nope. Father very well-off but doesn't support daughter beyond the odd hand-out to buy a new car or something. State schooling? Yes. One of the best state schools in the country. A-levels, but not university. On the dole? No. Has increasingly successful flower business, supplying hanging baskets to local pubs amongst other things. Very good income, as demonstrated by her and her children's clothing and regular holidays. Bit of this, bit of that, pregnant at 12? Pregnant at 25, split from father but he's still around a lot. Fifth child at 17? Second child at 32 with steady partner. On drugs? She does spend a lot of time in the boozer. Which I would if I had the cash.
Probably both exceptions to the rule though, eh?
Excellent! You've expertly rebutted two 'stereotypes' of your own creation. You set 'em up... erm... you knock 'em down, as well.
Also, what was the point of the above? Other than to demonstrate how you wasted every chance you had in your young life to make something of yourself?
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: Well, ya see, you seem like a really nice bloke, and I'm sure your kids are great and will grow up to be a credit to you. I just don't really see how it's my business whether they grow up in rented or mortgaged accommodation, and why my taxes should help to give YOU security
[snip]
So far I have:
- worked as a UK taxpayer for 4 years, never taking a day off sick EVER.
[snip]
JUST A FUCKING THANK YOU CARD WOULD BE NICE!
Sorry for the 'liberal' snips there, but I've worked as a UK taxpayer for 23 years (probably paying for your education while I was at it ), so I guess it would be more of my own taxes which I might be hoping for (but don't actually expect to get of course). A thank you card is kind of what I'd been thinking of too, but (before Black Mask points out the bleedin' obvious again) it doesn't work like that either.
[ 01.08.2005, 09:38: Message edited by: dang65 ]
Posted by Louche (Member # 450) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: Now this is an interesting point. You see, I have a theory that most people don't actually have a fucking clue what other people's circumstances actually are, but they think they have just going by appearances.
If someone has a big house then your instant impression is: wealthy parents, public school, university, well-paid job in daddy's company, inherit enormous house, have nanny and three cars and swimming pool. Or a variation on that theme.
If someone lives in a council house then the impression is: alcoholic parents, state schooling (occasionally if bovvered), on the dole, bit of this, bit of that, pregnant at 12, fifth child at 17, on drugs.
Are you telling me that I seem to have giant preconcieved assumptions about people based on what they happen to have?
I was simply pointing out that some of the people who posted on the BBC site seemed a bit smug. Fucking hell Dang.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask: Excellent! You've expertly rebutted two 'stereotypes' of your own creation. You set 'em up... erm... you knock 'em down, as well.
Yes, you've got me there. Obviously those weren't accurate stereotypes at all and no one actually views either large homeowners or council house tenants in that way at all. I do apologise. And may I apologise on behalf of all sitcom and sketch show writers of the last twenty years as well.
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask: Also, what was the point of the above?
I think it was in response to Louche's point about arrogant and smug homeowners. An attempt to rebuke that stereotype. Sorry.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: On my Open Uni summer school the other week, as well as learning that locusts carry on twitching for literally hours after they've been decapitated, I discovered that if I'd had a kid and didn't live with the father, I'd get my Open Uni courses FOR FREE, as well as the free flat and free year off work you seem to get for spreading your legs.
Looking after a babens alone and doing an OU course at the same time would be pretty tough. I reckon anyone who did that would have the gumption to make the most of the qualificatation that resulted and thereby provide a better life for her childe.
Result = society marginally improved!
Posted by Vogon Poetess (Member # 164) on :
I fucking work full time and am doing an OU course. Does that not make me a good person? I pretty much have a part share in next door's ickle babykins, as I've shared every sleepless night with them.
Dang, I see that your 23-years-as-taxpayer rant is going to dwarf my puny version- I guess I can look forward to increased outrage in later years. I'm not sure how the exchange works (a leaflet accompanying my first taxable payslip would have been nice). I mean, I probably wouldn't mind helping your lot out a bit, as you all read Harry Potter and seem quite respectable and stuff. It's just that it seems a lot more likely that my taxes would just support Croydon pikeys in the life of indolent chavdom they seem to enjoy.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: the life of indolent chavdom they seem to enjoy.
'Enjoy' seems a bit of a strong word. The sack of crap next door seems pretty miserable if the relentless shouting at her toddler, child and boyfriend is anything to go by, and the social life must be pretty non-existent, as these noisy and passionate exchanges are sustained all day, every day.
Posted by Vogon Poetess (Member # 164) on :
See, the fuckers aren't even grateful!
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: I fucking work full time and am doing an OU course. Does that not make me a good person? I pretty much have a part share in next door's ickle babykins, as I've shared every sleepless night with them.
I could toast marshmallows on the burning vibe of thwarted entitlement coming off this post - you know, I'm sure the FT work/OU combo does make you a good person... but does that righteousness blind you to the fact that offering free OU to single mothers offers a cost-effective way for a self-selecting minority to have a crack at improving life for themselves and their offspring - in the long term, perhaps even reducing the burden to 'the state' and, by extension, 'yourself'?
Posted by Gemini (Member # 428) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben:
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: I fucking work full time and am doing an OU course. Does that not make me a good person? I pretty much have a part share in next door's ickle babykins, as I've shared every sleepless night with them.
I could toast marshmallows on the burning vibe of thwarted entitlement coming off this post - you know, I'm sure the FT work/OU combo does make you a good person... but does that righteousness blind you to the fact that offering free OU to single mothers offers a cost-effective way for a self-selecting minority to have a crack at improving life for themselves and their offspring - in the long term, perhaps even reducing the burden to 'the state' and, by extension, 'yourself'?
I don't think VP is arguing against offering single mothers the chance to do OU, I just think she wants to rant a bit, a letting go of the steam that sometimes rises when you realise that despite the fact you are trying to play the good girl for the government and they just don't care and certainly aren't going to give you any attention or breaks as long as you give them the money.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
Hi guys!
Dear Vogon, I just wanted to drop you a line to say a great big "thank you!" for all the tax you have paid and for not being a parasite draining the lifebloods of the state. There are some very needy people out there and it's thanks to yuor hard work that they will be kept in microchips and Tennants! lol - just joking. But seriously: I felt I had to give you a pat on the back to recognise that it's people like you - the 'little people' if you will - who keep this Great Britian "great". And isn't it just. I'm sure you'll agree.
Anyway, er.
Keep up the good work!
Best wishes, T. Blair (teh Pri Minister) Posted by Vogon Poetess (Member # 164) on :
Yeah, I'm struggling to reconcile the fact that I think the OU is great, and that it's absolutely right that it's open to everyone (in Germany, you can't do their version of the OU unless you have the equivalent of A-Levels) with my resentment at the fact that none of the benefits ever come my way, and are never likely to.
I know it's beneficial for single mums to have a helping hand onto a better life, but I really can't be gracious about it.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: Keep up the good work!
Best wishes, T. Blair (teh Pri Minister)[/b]
See, I think that would make all the difference.
[ 01.08.2005, 11:03: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
It's good to be reminded occasionally just how many uptight, petty, small-minded vermin post on TMO.
Posted by Vogon Poetess (Member # 164) on :
A lovely sincere thanks from Tony B and a sneer from BM! My long overdue Secret Santa has finally arrived.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Don't quote me on this but I think it works like this: Basically if you're a struggling single mother, recovering crack addict, massively obese internet addict, or otherwise unable to have a full time job, and your yearly earnings total less than a certain amount (not 100% on that amount but i know it's way less than anyone in full time work earns) then you're entitled to financial assistance with your OU course, up to a certain amount, usually a percentage, and depending on the level of the course and the amount you earn. A similar scheme is also open to people currently serving a sentence at her Maj's pleasure.
Proof of earnings need to be demonstrated, and current benefits are taken into account too so if you're on jobseekers, incapacity, single parent benefits and the like then you'll need to stump up at least some of the readies.
Of course it's not totally fair on people who are working full time, who end up having to pay more than people who are unable to work (like the dole, I don't think you can just get this if you're too lazy to work, you have to have some reason for it) but if it's relevent to your job then there are a huge (and growing) number of students who are having their courses funded by their employer on various partner schemes, and I think the NHS runs one such scheme, so that's worth looking into.
The Open University is just that - Open to Everyone. I know it sounds like the kind of corporate sloganeering you hear day in, day out from soulless office automatons, but I do genuinely believe this ethos, and I'm proud to work for such an establishment which is generally trying to make a difference to the world.
Posted by doc d (Member # 781) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: I know it's beneficial for single mums to have a helping hand onto a better life, but I really can't be gracious about it.
what do you want? somebody to welcome your every achievment with "well done veep?".
i know its not easy i know its not nice to look around and think "when am i gonna get mine?", but just think: you haven't got 6 kids, you don't live in sub-saharan africa, you don't have aids and you've probably got another 30 years to live. by which time you'll have probably been able to retrain and get into science and earn some cash.
(though if you think a BSc is going to save the day, you're clearly delusional).
i'm almost certain you don't think : "i wish i'd got pregnant at 16". because you cannot honestly think that life would be any easier for you. do you think you'd have got the chance to go to university, teach abroad, then come back have some fun, goto nz, and then think "i'd like to retrain?". come on. because you haven't got kids to raise, you've got the ability to indulge yourself and do what you want. surely that's a pretty fucking good thing?
so in summation: quit your moaning, there's a bloody war on. and life is tough when you're middle class and white.
and dang: you've got a great big pile of bricks in the north, if size and status is so important to you, why move south to a smaller house?
i don't understand, i know, i know, you've been doing the treadmill for so long and it appears someone else is doing better than you with less effort. maybe they just know how to play the system better? and maybe if you didn't have multiple mini-dangs to worry about, being a free-lancer, trying to secure a future etc you would have time to work it out. maybe they met people early on who helped them play the system. maybe you didn't.
"And you may ask yourself What is that beautiful house? And you may ask yourself Where does that highway go? And you may ask yourself Am I right? ...am I wrong? And you may tell yourself My god!...what have I done? "
[ 01.08.2005, 16:42: Message edited by: doc d ]
Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: My DMs were literally falling apart and had been for some time. I maintained I "couldn't afford" to replace them (money better spent on booze; computer games).I only really replaced them because Octavia begged me to. If it wasn't for her I reckon I'd still be wearing (what was left) of them.
So true. I was in a similar situation with my then unfashionable specs - they were still in one piece, and as my eyesight hadn't deteriorated spending money on a new pair was incredibly annoying - money I would have rather spent on WW2 memorabilia or 1:72 die-cast tanks. Both my mother and Nightowl kept complaining about my not changing them - and it took only a bizarre accident to force me to get a new pair.
I got two new pairs, as it goes - I am now very pleased with the result and agree that I should have done it earlier, but handing over the credit card to pay for them was akin to pulling my own teeth out.
As far as shoes are concerned, I still have the scuffed pair of Cats I had back in 1999.
[ 01.08.2005, 16:43: Message edited by: Samuelnorton ]
Posted by Octavia (Member # 398) on :
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by dang65: If you've scrimped and saved for years to buy your own place then how does it help anyone to just sell up and throw it all away? I'm not suggesting that someone with a thousand pound a month mortgage payment and council taxes to go with it should just get that all paid by the DSS (or whatever they're called this week), but people who have bought a little council house or a weeny first-time buyer's flat shouldn't be abandoned when they are obviously the types that are doing their best to improve their lot on their own and not to scrounge off the state. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Umm. Belatedly. If you are a homeowner etc, then you probably have an infinitely better credit rating than chavvers, and if you need to, your mortgage company will allow you to extend your mortgage a bit so your monthly payments are lower, or take a payment holiday. And if they don't, then it's time to remortgage, especially as interest rates are going down this month.
And on the other thing, my latest theory is this. Ok, if you have a childe everyone pays for you to take time off work, and pays you monies for the childe's upbringing, schooling, healthcare, blah blah blah. I accept that these childes may grow up to be useful taxpayers etc. But a) - if I choose not to have four children, I want the equivalent of four years off work, please, and b) - if your childe doesn't grow up to be a taxpayer, you should damn well give all that money back.
In haste.
Darryn here - Ooops, I hit edit rather than reply and killed the post, this is as best as I can put it back right now - SORRY OCTO
[ 02.08.2005, 05:04: Message edited by: Darryn.R ]
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Octavia: a) - if I choose not to have four children, I want the equivalent of four years off work, please,
Why should you have four years off work for not having children, you dozy skank?
Posted by Vanilla Online Persona (Member # 301) on :
I think its a 'tough shit' situation. Families have already had their largely selfish decisions like 'having children' subsidised by those that didn't make that decision. Even if some people don't like it, the general benefit is obvious, well, mostly. The proposition that people who chose not to 'take the risk' of owning their own home should further subsidise the people who did is puerile and self-serving.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Octavia: b) - if your childe doesn't grow up to be a taxpayer, you should damn well give all that money back.
In haste.
Is this what you think you've got fingers for? For typing idiotic shit like this? Keep up the good work of not reproducing.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by Octavia: b) - if your childe doesn't grow up to be a taxpayer, you should damn well give all that money back.
Quite so. Parents who have foolishly lost a child to cot death, leukaemia or drink driving should expect a hefty bill to reimburse the rest of us for everything spent on the deceased unit up to that point.
It's only fair, when you think about it.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
It appears that I've somehow come across on this thread as feeling hard done by or something, which I really didn't intend. Perhaps it was writing stuff like:
Where's the justice in that?
By featuring the Steelgate I was, of course, signifying that it was the voice of another making the comment. I'm quite happy with my own situation and I do not expect or wish for aid from the government if my "gamble" goes tits up all of a sudden.
On the other hand, it is hard to see why someone who has taken the "gamble" of renting and not paying into a pension will get baled out when compared to another person on the same income who has managed to get themselves into their own property. The same money, we're talking about. In fact, there must be a lot of people who rent property who are on much higher incomes than others who buy property. If the renters suddenly find they can't pay their rent then, by the same logic as "sell your property you smug git", they should move to cheaper accomodation, sell the car and TV etc etc.
Basically, each case needs to be judged individually. Yeah, I would fail on the grounds that I have good equity and could afford to sell up and move on without major disruption or financial loss, but someone in a weeny ex-council house like we used to have in London, with no equity and little hope of selling and nowhere cheaper to move to... well, how are they in any way better off than someone renting a house in the same road? In the same way as society pays for schooling for the good of the whole, it must surely be for the good of everyone to support someone in that situation. It's the black and white "rent = benefit, mortgage = tough shit" situation which, to me, seems plainly wrong.
Posted by Vogon Poetess (Member # 164) on :
Come on Octavia, who are you trying to kid? What have you ever given society? What kind of evil, selfish witch owns a four bedroom house and doesn't fill it with children?
It's time to accept that your womb is worth more than your brain. Working diligently will not get you as far as proving that your ovaries function properly.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: What have you ever given society? What kind of evil, selfish witch owns a four bedroom house and doesn't fill it with children?
These are very good questions. They need answering, now.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: it is hard to see why someone who has taken the "gamble" of renting and not paying into a pension will get baled out
Dang, renting isn't a gamble. It's what a lot of people have to do. And if you think getting £47 a week to live on when you're 65 is getting baled out, then that's pretty mean-spirited.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask: Dang, renting isn't a gamble. It's what a lot of people have to do.
Yes, there are people that have to, but I tried to make it clear in my post that there are a lot of people who rent when they are in the same or better financial position as others who are buying. We rented a house when we lived in the Isle of Man, as one completely arbitrary example. Why would the rent be covered by benefit when the (cheaper) mortgage wouldn't?
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask: And if you think getting £47 a week to live on when you're 65 is getting baled out, then that's pretty mean-spirited.
Does the £47 a week include rent? I don't know the facts here, but I suspect that a 65-year-old living in a rented flat would get their rent paid + pension and a 65-year-old paying a mortgage would just get the pension.
It's the discrepancy that I'm trying to highlight, not any mean-spiritedness. I'm not trying to have the money taken away from the poor renters, I'm trying to point out that plenty of homeowners are in the same dire need but are discounted simply because they have a mortgage rather than a rent book.
Why should a homeowner have to basically jetison years of hard work in hanging in there and making mortage payments, while a renter doesn't have to budge an inch. Renters are not told to collect the deposit, flog the car and spend the cash on a cheaper gaff. You live in London? Just move to Salford, the rent's half the price there. Why does that sort of comment apply to a homeowner and not to a renter?
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: By featuring the Steelgate I was, of course, signifying that it was the voice of another making the comment.
Oh... perhaps you should use this :dangry-faece: to help us differentiate.
Posted by Vogon Poetess (Member # 164) on :
I'm proper confused now. Do I get my rent paid when I'm a pensioner then?
I think it would be easier if we all lived in treehouses.
Posted by Vanilla Online Persona (Member # 301) on :
Pensions assets in the UK can now be in the form of property. Effectively you can rent to yourself. So, I don't think I'm seeing your point.
Posted by herbs (Member # 101) on :
I could be wrong, but if one's on income support or jobseeker's allowance or whatever, I thought you get help towards your housing costs whether it's rent or mortgage interest payments. So how d'ya like them apples, Dang?
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by herbs: I could be wrong, but if one's on income support or jobseeker's allowance or whatever, I thought you get help towards your housing costs whether it's rent or mortgage interest payments. So how d'ya like them apples, Dang?
This situation seems a bit vague. I said, "I don't know the facts here," you say, "I could be wrong," and the original BBC article which sparked off this joy filled thread says:
quote:Homeowners often receive little state help, as they can be denied benefits available to people who rent or live in local authority housing or excluded from local regeneration initiatives simply because they own their own property.
Housing benefit, for example, is, usually, only available to people who rent or live in local authority accommodation.
In fact, overall, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, only 8% of state help with housing costs go to homeowners.
Which is highly ambiguous. Anyone actually know what the deal is?
Posted by omikin (Member # 37) on :
would the fact that only 8% of these benefits go to homeowners be a factor of homeowners largely being in better financial positions than renters?
to be honest, i'm surprised it's as high as 8%.
Posted by herbs (Member # 101) on :
According to Shelter's website, you get income support mortgage interest (ISMA) benefit:
Most people who are unemployed or on a very low income can get help [with their mortgage].... Loans for essential repairs or improvements may be covered even if you take them out after you claim income support or job seeker's allowance.
You can't get any money to cover the capital you originally borrowed, or any investment that is linked to your mortgage (such as an endowment policy, pension or ISA). Posted by vikram (Member # 98) on :
quote:Originally posted by Octavia: if I choose not to have four children, I want the equivalent of four years off work, please, and b) - if your childe doesn't grow up to be a taxpayer, you should damn well give all that money back.[/b]
Are you aware of the concept of society?
How can anyone be so small minded? I don't get it. They'll all be bleating when they're grey and there's no people to pay their pensions.
[ 02.08.2005, 05:54: Message edited by: vikram ]
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
There seems to be a drastic shortage of winky-wanky assumption on this thread. I think it's fairly evident that Octavia wasn't actually saying she actually wants a rebate. Was she?
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by vikram: Are you aware of the concept of society?
lol. What's your contribution to society? Perpetually scampering off round the world because you're too scared to get a job? I don't agree with Octavia's comment, which seemed to me to be unserious, but I dunno - there's something that sticks in my craw about a genuinely workshy coward preaching to other people about the concept of 'society'.
[ 02.08.2005, 06:00: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by Gemini (Member # 428) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis:
quote:Originally posted by ben: Keep up the good work!
Hmm, with you there Dang. Perhaps what Octavia was after there was hyperbole or, if you will, sarcasm, for humorous effect.
Posted by vikram (Member # 98) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: lol. What's your contribution to society? Perpetually scampering off round the world because you're too scared to get a job? I don't agree with Octavia's comment, which seemed to me to be unserious, but I dunno - there's something that sticks in my craw about a genuinely workshy coward preaching to other people about the concept of 'society'.
Yeah, so I've been on an extended holiday. Actually, I may well be getting a job here next month. It's time to settle. But even if I don't, it doesn't really matter. It's been two years - am I meant to pay the equivalent taxes I'd have contributed had I stayed in Britain? Octavia seems to be arguing for a system of autonomous individuals. Perhaps she feels that the poor should pay more tax because they take so much out of the system. Or rather that the rich should have tax holidays because they didn't fall poor. How enlightened! Fuck off, Thorn.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by vikram: Yeah, so I've been on an extended holiday. Actually, I may well be getting a job here next month. It's time to settle. But even if I don't, it doesn't really matter. It's been two years - am I meant to pay the equivalent taxes I'd have contributed had I stayed in Britain? Octavia seems to be arguing for a system of autonomous individuals. Perhaps she feels that the poor should pay more tax because they take so much out of the system. Or rather that the rich should have tax holidays because they didn't fall poor. How enlightened! Fuck off, Thorn.
I'm not really interested in defending something that was obviously a joke. And to be honest, on the whole I couldn't really give a fuck how you spend your time - that's your business. However, I did do a kind of disbelieving half-laugh at the idea of someone who's indulged themselves with extended holidays for most of their working life, who's continually shied away from actually getting a proper job, coming out and preaching to someone about their obligations to keep working and earning in order to play their meaningful role in society. I mean - that just makes you look like a turd.
Posted by vikram (Member # 98) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: preaching to someone about their obligations to keep working and earning in order to play their meaningful role in society.
I didn't do this, you cock.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Really? So what did you mean with the question "Are you aware of the concept of society"?
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
Hmmm. Both on this thread and the Wonka thread yesterday we seem to be running into a problem of people not knowing when other people are 'trying to be funny' or 'actually being serious'. OR people claiming 'I/hir was just being funny, you cununt' or 'chill out, twat, I thought you were joking'.
This just another symptom of the relentless americanisation of our society? Posted by Abby (Member # 582) on :
It does seem to be a bit tense doesn't it. Perhaps I should lighten the mood with amusing tales from my camping trip? I hope there will be photos soon....
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Abby: It does seem to be a bit tense doesn't it.
Yeah. People should just stop suddenly piling in with a fistful of insults. What the fuck does that ever achieve anyway?
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
Maybe this thread is illustrating, yet again, the reason why we don't seem to have revolutions in this country these days. What I mean is, whenever one of us rages about an injustice, another one comes along and puts a completely alternative view. This occurs with situations like the invasion of Iraq, ID Cards, immigration, the distribution of state benefits, the threat of al-Qaeda etc etc.
At least in other countries one can say, "We are being oppressed by an evil government/imperialist invader/vile despot" and everyone else will go, "Yes, you're right, let's rise up and overthrow them". Nice and clean cut and well defined. Here, we're all moaning about something but it's the opposite to what the person next to us is moaning about.
[ 02.08.2005, 06:47: Message edited by: dang65 ]
Posted by Vanilla Online Persona (Member # 301) on :
quote:Originally posted by Abby: It does seem to be a bit tense doesn't it. Perhaps I should lighten the mood with amusing tales from my camping trip? I hope there will be photos soon....
Good idea Abby, and do it on the 'dumb ideas' thread in Rants. I have confessed to doing a stupid and have been left mercilessly swinging in the wind. Like a cock, with 'thread killer' tatooed on it's underside.
Posted by Vanilla Online Persona (Member # 301) on :
quote:Originally posted by Abby: It does seem to be a bit tense doesn't it. Perhaps I should lighten the mood with amusing tales from my camping trip? I hope there will be photos soon....
Good idea Abby, and do it on the 'dumb ideas' thread in Rants. I have confessed to doing a stupid and have been left mercilessly swinging in the wind. Like a cock, with 'thread killer' tatooed on it's underside.
Posted by rooster (Member # 738) on :
Just to point out (although the conversation has wandered a bit away from this subject):
Having a home does not necessarily mean you have equity. Here the prices for homes are so high that first time homebuyers (who don’t have help from mommy and daddy) have to use the increasingly popular tool of interest only mortgages, which could result in a negative equity if the house value decreases.
I could see how this could be considered poverty: paying a huge chunk of your salary to maintain a house that is further draining your resources.
However, this does rely on a definition of poverty that has to do with more than just the income you take home from work.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by rooster: However, this does rely on a definition of poverty that has to do with more than just the income you take home from work.
I understand that it classes as gambling debt.
ETA:
Cheers Misc!
[ 02.08.2005, 07:29: Message edited by: dang65 ]
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
I'm reminded of Sherman McCoy's "I'm haemorrhaging money!" lament in The Bonfire of the Vanities.
If poverty really means anything, it's about being born into - or sinking back into - a situation characterised by a lack of options for self-improvement. First time buyers have a variety of options in terms of relocating to somewhere they can achieve a balance between half-decent job and half-decent housing; the expensive option is never the only one available - simply the one that most people have gone for.
Posted by rooster (Member # 738) on :
I have to disagree.
Relocating and finding another job isn't that easy: we have been trying for three years now and nothing. Froopy commutes an hour+ to work just to be able to get something "affordable," which is still tons more expensive than 99% of the rest of the country.
So, if it is about not having options, then that's where we are (and I wouldn't have said before that we are in poverty, but with your new definition...)
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
And there are no jobs in "99% of the rest of the country?" That sounds like a pretty untransferable skillset you got there.
Posted by Vogon Poetess (Member # 164) on :
rooster, that's interesting, I thought a lot of the might of the American economy was due to the transience of the workforce and the ease with which people can switch jobs and states. I don't really know anything about Economics though, so might have made that up.
Posted by rooster (Member # 738) on :
He's a marketing manager - marketing was one of the fields hit hardest by the 'recession.'
For example, he hired for a part-time nothing position the other day and many of the applicants were MBAs who used to be execs before they lost their jobs.
It's not like we can pick up and be waiters somewhere to have a tiny mortgage - there are other factors like student loans to consider.
Edit: I'm not lamenting our plight, because we do just fine thank you - I don't mind taking advantage of some of the more creative financing tools out there...just trying to illuminate a different idea of home ownership.
[ 02.08.2005, 07:45: Message edited by: rooster ]
Posted by rooster (Member # 738) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: rooster, that's interesting, I thought a lot of the might of the American economy was due to the transience of the workforce and the ease with which people can switch jobs and states. I don't really know anything about Economics though, so might have made that up.
VP, not that I've known. One of the problems with relocating is that any company in particular area you want to move to wants 'ties' to that community. They would much rather hire a slightly less qualified local applicant for the assurance that they aren't just job shopping and will move again when something better comes along.
Posted by Octavia (Member # 398) on :
Lol at reaction to my post. I'm only allowed on here at certain times of the day one day per week so it's tricky to participate in arguments properly.
However. Hopefully obviously, I wasn't really expecting cashback for not having children. However, I do think there's an awful lot of resentment at parental piss-taking in workplaces. Frequently (and I'm not flinging accusations at anyone here) people with children seem to think it's fine to take random extra time off (for example) to attend school plays, dentist's appointments, doctors etc etc for their children, as well as for themselves obviously.
Now, I'm not stupid enough to believe that we're all self-supporting in-duh-viduals (sic). There is such a thing as society, social contract etc etc. However, I would argue that having children isn't the only contribution to society you can make. If I never take maternity leave, then that's however-many extra months/years of working full time and contributing my cash to the tax-pot, rather than taking it out. Not to mention the not-taking-out for children. Would it be completely unreasonable to say - do I earn the right to retire a year early? Can I have some extra holiday? Can I take a sabbatical?
Posted by Physic (Member # 195) on :
Fair point about the interest only mortgages Rooster, though interestingly as far as I can tell they've pretty much died a death in this country for new buyers, so many people have had problems with their endowment policy falling short of the amount owed that they're pretty much seen as an unthinkable option. When I was getting mortgage quotes recently all of the advisers I spoke to seemed to almost laugh off the very idea that I might be after an interest only mortgage without even asking "well we do repayment mortgages or interest only mortgages, but you don't want one of those now do you they're shit, ha ha..", or words to roughly that effect, and these are the companies selling the things..
[ 02.08.2005, 07:54: Message edited by: Physic ]
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by rooster: For example, he hired for a part-time nothing position the other day and many of the applicants were MBAs who used to be execs before they lost their jobs.
This is probably the most purely pleasurable sentence ever written on TMO. Read it six times in succession and you ascend to a state of untinctured calm and delight.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
Also, as mentioned previously, areas with cheaper property and lower cost of living are usually like that because they also have very low prospects and high unemployment. And property's not that much cheaper, either to buy or to rent, except in the really bad places. You'll still need work to survive, and if your family and friends are all in London, for example, then you're suddenly cut off from them without much hope of returning (which is why we're doing what we're doing and trying to keep up with London while we're up North).
So, saying "sell up and go somewhere cheap" should really only apply as an absolute last resort, not after a couple of months of being out of employment or off work with an unexpected illness. To me that's social injustice, just as much as any £47 a week pension.
And why is it homeowners that have to get insurance to cover them if they get sick or laid off? Why not renters too?
Posted by Physic (Member # 195) on :
Surely it's the banks that insist on that to try and avoid the hassle of repossessing the house and auctioning it off, whereas a landlord can just kick you out on your ear for non-payment of rent? Posted by herbs (Member # 101) on :
And such insurance isn't compulsory, anyway. Just 'recommended', mainly because it's extortionately expensive and makes the insurance companies a tidy profit.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
That's a total generalisation, Dang. Darlington, where I used to live, had a range of affordable housing, a pretty good quality of life and excellent communications to Newcastle, York, Leeds and even London. Sure, the nightlife wasn't exactly private-view-at-White-Cube-followed-by-chops-at-Petrus but, fuck it, very few Londoners I know actually have that kind of a night life.
I can't imagine that Darlington was, like, the one place in the British Isles where it's possible to strike that balance - as ever with these things it's a question of researching a particular area, surely.
Sure, "selling up and moving somewhere cheap" ought to be a last resort, but going for "the most expensive place we could afford" doesn't exactly give you a lot of wriggle room in the first resort.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by herbs: And such insurance isn't compulsory, anyway. Just 'recommended', mainly because it's extortionately expensive and makes the insurance companies a tidy profit.
No, I meant that people on this thread have written, "Get yourself insured then, ya homeowning gits" or something like that.
ETA: Just looking back and I don't think anyone did say that here actually, it's on the BBC site that it's mentioned.
[ 02.08.2005, 08:12: Message edited by: dang65 ]
Posted by Physic (Member # 195) on :
Isn't that because, by your own admission, you have more to lose than a renter? Solicitors fees, etc from selling, and early repayment fees on your mortgage, alone mean that you have more to lose than someone who can just rent a cheaper property?
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Thing is though Ben, why should people have to relocate? When i come to buy my first property, it's almost certain that I will have to leave the city I've called home for my whole life, becasue home owners are constantly being encouraged to increase the value of their property through development, and because there are no houses currently being built for people like myself, despite a huge expansion programme being put into effect. It seems that unless you are earning over 20k a year and have a partner on a similar salary, and have a large chunk of money saved, you can't possibly have a hope of getting a house in Milton Keynes. And even with that kind of income, you'd be lucky to get anything other than a 1 or 2 bedroom property in one of the rougher areas of the city.
I don't want to have to leave behind my family, my friends and my home, not to mention pretty much everything I've ever known, just for the sake of saving a few quid each month. While there is that cheaper option available, it's pretty much out of the question. Just getting up and moving to a different job and city is actually a pretty big deal and not the simple step you seem to be making out.
And after all, I earn an ok wage, I've always paid my taxes, why should I leave the place I call home? What have I done to be forced out like that?
Posted by mimolette (Member # 478) on :
LOL!
Surely those of us not having children should be punished, not rewarded?!
I can see some kind of merit system working, as long as you have an large enough number of civil servants keeping track of a large enough list of credits and debits (surely noone is suggesting that having children is the only time we get to scrape back some funds and time from the state) for the entire working population of Great Britain. That wouldn't cost much.
"Yeah, see, it's true that you worked 2 years longer on average than anyone else, but you've left three old washing machines in three different front gardens cos you were too lazy to take them to the tip. Then there are the 3,123 bottles you didn't recycle, plus that time you were 'ill'. Hmm, it says here you need to do another six months. Next!"
[ 02.08.2005, 08:15: Message edited by: mimolette ]
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: Sure, "selling up and moving somewhere cheap" ought to be a last resort, but going for "the most expensive place we could afford" doesn't exactly give you a lot of wriggle room in the first resort.
Yes, but we didn't move here for the property situation, we moved because it's where the work was. There's quite good work opportunities in this area. How about in Darlington? Would you be able to move there temporarily while you were unable to afford to keep your place in London, and then move back in a couple of years say?
As for good communications from up North to London, I agree. We go down to South fairly often and it only takes about four hours to drive it. But it's unbelievably rare for anyone to come up here to visit. (n.b. That may have nothing to do with the distance of course.)
Posted by Octavia (Member # 398) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: I don't want to have to leave behind my family, my friends and my home, not to mention pretty much everything I've ever known
Umm. But it's fun? It is pretty simple upping sticks and moving your whole life, if you're single. Expanded horizons an' all that. Just done it myself (again) and can thoroughly recommend it. New worlds to conquer etc.
Posted by Louche (Member # 450) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: Yes, but we didn't move here for the property situation, we moved because it's where the work was. There's quite good work opportunities in this area. How about in Darlington? Would you be able to move there temporarily while you were unable to afford to keep your place in London, and then move back in a couple of years say?
You cannot possibly be saying that Aderley Edge, most expensive place to live in the whole of the North West, apart from a bit near the Ribble Valley, is the only place the work is?
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Louche: You cannot possibly be saying that Alderley Edge, most expensive place to live in the whole of the North West, apart from a bit near the Ribble Valley, is the only place the work is?
When I say, "There's quite good work opportunities in this area" I mean in the Greater Manchester area, not just within 1/2 mile of my front door.
As I've said many times, we bought this house in a ridiculously expensive area simply because we hope to return to London one day and we wanted to at least attempt to keep up with London property prices. I think that's the only realistic way we can get back there, although it seems a pretty stupid policy at the moment when we're paying a fortune every month and there's far cheaper areas only a few miles away. But that's the reason we're doing it.
Maybe we'll change our minds and just move to one of those cheaper areas instead. Especially when the BBC move up here. I've always wanted to work for them, however deluded that dream may be.
Posted by Darryn.R (Member # 1) on :
May as well ask, what could i get in the UK (Not London, cos there I could only buy a shoebox) for somewhere in the ballpark of 370'000 Euro ?(Currently: 256'000 GBP-ish)
Posted by Vanilla Online Persona (Member # 301) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darryn.R: May as well ask, what could i get in the UK (Not London, cos there I could only buy a shoebox) for somewhere in the ballpark of 370'000 Euro ?(Currently: 256'000 GBP-ish)
Newcastle
or Scotland.
Posted by Darryn.R (Member # 1) on :
LOL Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darryn.R: May as well ask, what could i get in the UK (Not London, cos there I could only buy a shoebox) for somewhere in the ballpark of 370'000 Euro ?(Currently: 256'000 GBP-ish)
For 256k you could get a very nice family house in or around Manchester, certainly.
ETA: A few examples to browse through - Warning: Some of those may sap your will to live just looking at the pictures, but others look quite nice.
That link might throw an error, but it's easy enough to set up the search from the homepage obviously.
[ 02.08.2005, 09:26: Message edited by: dang65 ]
Posted by Vanilla Online Persona (Member # 301) on :
Its surprising what the passing of years and the onset of Alzheimers will do.
whadda happened there - did you use your special powers to remove yourself inappropriately?
[ 02.08.2005, 09:32: Message edited by: Vanilla Online Persona ]
Posted by Darryn.R (Member # 1) on :
yes, I suddenly noticed nobody was talking about Newcastle and I was..
Dang's talking about Manchester, I get the two confused.
You can get a LOT of house for your money in the UK though I see, I guess that land is at such a high premium here (what with most of it being reclaimed or under sea level) that you get very little space for the money you pay.
I looked at a house the same size as ours (actually a little smaller) about a mile and a half up the road with a much nicer garden backing onto an actual river and they wanted half a million for it !
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: As I've said many times, we bought this house in a ridiculously expensive area simply because we hope to return to London one day and we wanted to at least attempt to keep up with London property prices. I think that's the only realistic way we can get back there, although it seems a pretty stupid policy at the moment when we're paying a fortune every month and there's far cheaper areas only a few miles away. But that's the reason we're doing it.
Which is fair enough, but if your priority is to give yourself a leg up the property ladder, ought it to be the state's responsibility to pick you up - or give you a mortgage holiday or whatever - should times turn hard? I imagine such a system would be open to pretty major abuse.
Is it the purpose of our tax quids to subsidise people playing the property market? Wouldn't the money be better spent investing in social housing (which would have to be rental only for fear of being snapped up by middle class couples as a 'buy-to-let investment')? Oh I don't know - that'd probably bring on a HOUSE PRICE CRASH and then the mighty wailing would start.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
A house price crash would probably be the best thing that could happen to the housing market. That or the 'buy to let'ers should be taxed into oblivion to make room for people like me to actually buy a reasonably priced house in the city we choose.
Posted by squeegy (Member # 136) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: A house price crash would probably be the best thing that could happen to the housing market. That or the 'buy to let'ers should be taxed into oblivion to make room for people like me to actually buy a reasonably priced house in the city we choose.
A house price crash would be the best thing for YOU. But where would that leave poor Dang and all the thousands of others who have pumped loads of money into their property only for it to crumble around them. How nice.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
What, the greedy fools who have seen too many episodes of property ladder and think they're going to become millionaires by laying down a thousand square feet of laminate flooring in their lifetime?
Sod them. At least they've got a house, even if it has lost them a whole bunch of money.
sorry ben
[ 02.08.2005, 11:42: Message edited by: Ringo ]
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
"Language Christopher!" Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
To be honest, I think the whole system stinks. People shouldn't be allowed to make more money on a property than what they've put in, except in interest.
I really can't understand why anyone would agree that it's reasonable to say that a house's value is increased by 10 thousand pounds by adding a 4 thousand pound conservatory. Why do people pay so much extra? If house prices actually reflected the cost of the work that's going into them, then perhaps people would improve their houses simply for the sake of makingit a nicer place to live, rather than to extort large sums of money from some mug with more cash than brains.
Posted by Vogon Poetess (Member # 164) on :
Treehouses, Ringo, it's the only way.
Posted by omikin (Member # 37) on :
ringo and vogon, 2025.
[ 02.08.2005, 12:18: Message edited by: omikin ]
Posted by omikin (Member # 37) on :
dp.
[ 02.08.2005, 12:19: Message edited by: omikin ]
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
I've just had a lovely day in Brighton with my woman and my children. We ate fish and chips, ice creams, went on the Crazy Mouse, the Waltzer and the Wild River water ride. We swam in the sea nd went to the pub. Had a go on the 2p pushy-pushy machines, bought some tat. Now we're home in our subsidised, housing association, rented flat. We'd all like to send a big shout out to all the TMOers that pay tax. Thanks, duders. Not vikram, the workshy, globetrotting **** . And a special big-up to dang and octavia, thanks for the elizabeths, h8trz!
Posted by Vanilla Online Persona (Member # 301) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask: ate fish and chips went to the pub Had a go on the 2p pushy-pushy machines, bought some tat
You're paid to parent, fucker, not waste our hard-earned platinum on gambling, drinking, tatting and larding.
Think of the children. Do you really want them to end up like YOU!
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: ...if your priority is to give yourself a leg up the property ladder, ought it to be the state's responsibility to pick you up - or give you a mortgage holiday or whatever - should times turn hard?
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask: And a special big-up to dang and octavia, thanks for the elizabeths, h8trz!
Picture the scene, 1950s Southern USA. I suggest to my colleagues Ben and Black Mask that coloured folk should be entitled to sit down on buses just as white folk are.
Black Mask: You disgusting h8tr of white folk! *spit*
Ben: You really expect to have a special seat prepared for you on the bus and that the driver should carry you to it before bringing you a cup of tea??!!
What I'm trying to say (and have said before on this thread *sigh*) is that there are many, many homeowners who are far worse off than many, many renters.
I am not expecting to be baled out by the state myself, and nor am I suggesting that renters should be abandoned. I'm simply pointing out that there is an anomaly in treating all homeowners as if they were wealthy money-grabbers clambering gleefully up the ladder, and all renters as if they had no choice but to huddle round an unlit piece of coal in a damp bedsit as they chew on a mouldy potato.
Posted by herbs (Member # 101) on :
B-but who's treating them like this? It would appear that home-owners can get benefit to help with their housing costs, just like renters, and that renters can take out critical illness cover, just like home-owners.
Do you just mean that it's the general perception that homeowner = rich, renter = poor? 'Cos I think that's changing too. There are a lot of disgustingly rich people renting overpriced London penthouses and the like.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by herbs: There are a lot of disgustingly rich people renting overpriced London penthouses and the like.
That's probably dang.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
"Homeowners are the niggers of capitalism." - YOKO ONO Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask: That's probably dang.
quote:Originally posted by ben: "Homeowners are the niggers of capitalism." - YOKO ONO
What, non-responses from both of you?
Herbs, I really don't know what the actual criteria would be for a homeowner to be eligible for help with their mortgage, but the BBC article points out that homeowners are automatically excluded from housing schemes and the like, and your earlier quote from Shelter says:
quote:Most people who are unemployed or on a very low income can get help [with their mortgage]...
You can't get any money to cover the capital you originally borrowed, or any investment that is linked to your mortgage (such as an endowment policy, pension or ISA).
Now, I get as confused as the next sane person when it comes to mortgages and finance, but that looks to me as if they would pay for the interest payments on an endowment based mortgage, but not the endowment itself, and that you'd be stuffed if you have a repayment mortgage, as the payments there are to "cover the capital you originally borrowed".
You ask, "Do you just mean that it's the general perception that homeowner = rich, renter = poor? 'Cos I think that's changing too." Well, it doesn't seem to be changing on this thread, s'all I'm saying.
[ 03.08.2005, 04:57: Message edited by: dang65 ]
Posted by herbs (Member # 101) on :
I think that the benefit pays for the interest part of the mortgage, but not the capital repayment (endowment, ISA, w/ev). But the interest part is usually about three times that of the capital part, so it's not bad. And I don't think benefit pays ALL the rent. Though it might.
So, I do think that home-owners are better off than renters, because of the inescapable fact of the equity. Soz.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Yes but renters are poor though aren't they. I'm not talking about the money in their pockets but the worth of their assets. A home owner, even one that is struggling to make ends meet, is almost always wealthier than a renter, even though the renter may have the more comfortable lifestyle and the greater disposeable income. This may well be a lifestyle choice for a number of ultra rich in London, but I wouldn't say they're representative of the renting population as a whole.
And still nobody is able to give a satisfactory answer as to why 'home improvements' give returns of housands of pounds profit.
Like last night, when I was watching some programme where they brighten up a whole street by pulling down old walls and making them all look the same. The estate agents seemed to think that using a budget of £800 per house, they'd added 10k of value to every property!. Why are people suckered into paying these prices for essentially nothing?
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
It's almost as though the majority of people are fucking idiots.
Posted by herbs (Member # 101) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: And still nobody is able to give a satisfactory answer as to why 'home improvements' give returns of housands of pounds profit.
Because people are lazy, and would rather the work was done before they moved in. Essentially.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
So people would happily pay 9 thousand quid just so they don't have to build their own 1 thousand pound wall? Is that seriously what you're saying?
Because I'm lazy, I'll admit that, but my definition of lazy is getting someone else in to do it rather than doing it for yourself, not wasting tens of thousands of pounds just to save yourself the hassle of having builders round for a few weeks.
Come on, all you home owners out there, justify why you probably paid well above the odds for your houses, and why you expect the future owners of your house to do the same?
Posted by Vogon Poetess (Member # 164) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: You ask, "Do you just mean that it's the general perception that homeowner = rich, renter = poor? 'Cos I think that's changing too." Well, it doesn't seem to be changing on this thread, s'all I'm saying.
I don't think of home-owners as "richer" so much as a lot more smug and boring. Renters don't sit in the pub and compare different types of mortgage. Sitting in a pub talking about finance! Also renters don't talk endlessly about DIY and colour schemes and are not responsible for the vomitous glut of home improvement wank shows on telly. I mean, I have no idea what an interest/endowment mortgage thing is and I feel enriched by this ignorance.
We will of course talk about lying estate agent scum, but I feel everybody can participate in those sorts of conversations.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: And still nobody is able to give a satisfactory answer as to why 'home improvements' give returns of housands of pounds profit.
Yeah, well, it's fairly obvious that making a place attractive gives you a better chance of selling it. It's probably not so much that putting in a new kitchen or whatever actually puts the price up, but more that a manky old grot heap of a kitchen will put the price down and make people offer a lot less. By cleaning up and refitting you are simply realising the top market value, however pathetic that may seem.
It's never the actual cost of the materials that has to be considered, or else we'd never pay more than 20p for a CD, or 3 quid for the gouache and canvas that Van Gogh used to make Sunflowers.
When people look round a house they want to be able to picture themselves living there, comfortably and pleasantly, and a lot of people simply have no creative thoughts whatsoever so nothing can be left to the imagination.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: What, non-responses from both of you?
Respond to what? A repeated statement in the key of whine?
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Yes but Dang, this is what's destroying the housing market. Now you can walk into a house in the poorest estate, with a rotting sofa and burning Ford Cortina outside, and find beautiful laminate flooring and granite work surfaces, not to mention a price tag in excess of 100 thousand. On a house that was probably bought originally through the council for less than a third of that. it's pathetic that people are suckered by it, and that the people looking to buy their first property are forced either to relocate to another city, purchase a house in an area that's completely run down, or enter into some kind of shared ownership scheme which is an even bigger rip off then buying the house outright.
What's really telling, Dang, is that you would compare the pricing of a conservatory to that of a timeless classic work of art. It's not art, it's the result of flicking through the Ikea catalogue on a Saturday afternoon. The only people who are saying you should expect such returns are the estate agents.
Can anyone tell me why the estate agents might want to sell houses for more than they're worth? Anyone?
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Also - the price someone would pay to have a conservatory erected (or a new bathroom fitted or whatever) is not simply the cost of the materials used - it also covers workers fees etc, so it's not like I'm trying to say the effect of home improvement should simply be based on the physical value of the materials used, I do think that the outlay of the previous owners should be covered, but not improved upon.
After all, what have they done to deserve thousands for making a few phone calls?
I just think that people, in general, are actually morons, much like Thorn said. I really can't think of a single other reason why anyone would pay so much more than a house is really worth, just to save themselves the hassle of having the improvements done themselves.
Posted by herbs (Member # 101) on :
Ah, but the concept of 'worth' is a tricky one. A house is 'worth' what someone will pay for it. Thus, if an imagination-free couch potato who simply has to have a conservatory, and a new B&Q beech-effect kitchen to keep the wife happy is willing to pay £20K more than the house next door without such luxuries, then that is what it is 'worth' on the market, and how estate agents price it.
Talking of estate agents, I have just paid one £5k for doing no more than writing a brochure, badly, and showing one set of people round. They truly are the devil's spawn.
Posted by Vogon Poetess (Member # 164) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: Yes but Dang, this is what's destroying the housing market. Now you can walk into a house in the poorest estate, with a rotting sofa and burning Ford Cortina outside, and find beautiful laminate flooring and granite work surfaces, not to mention a price tag in excess of 100 thousand.
Interesting you should say that. Thorn and I are currently looking (yet again) for somewhere else to live (driven out of our home by the noise of the surrounding breeders). The other week we looked at an ex-Local Authority place in Earlsfield/Wandsworth. It was absolutely perfect inside- spacious, impeccably decorated, 2 good sized doubles, completely stunning. However, it was in one of those council flat buildings where you have to walk along a communal balcony area to get to your front door, picking your way through other people's washing and abandoned shopping trolleys. The lift was one of those clanking and juddering affairs, with the alternative being a poorly lit breeze block stairwell. I just knew I wouldn't feel safe coming home on my own (drunk) late at night, and I am not one of those flapping women who panic about walking home on their own.
It seemed a bit of a waste of decorating effort really; I think it would be incredibly difficult to sell.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: I just think that people, in general, are actually morons, much like Thorn said. I really can't think of a single other reason why anyone would pay so much more than a house is really worth, just to save themselves the hassle of having the improvements done themselves.
You're absolutely right, of course. We've never bought a property which was already done up. We started in a one-bedroom flat in a 1920s block in Wandsworth, decorated it and put in a new kitchen ourselves, then sold it and moved to a wrecked two-bedroom ex-council house round the corner and put in new windows and central heating and an extra bedroom in the loft, and sold that and moved up North where it's cheaper and bought the unmodernised house we live in now and hope to find some cash to do up one day.
If there are suckers, or lazy people with plenty of cash, then that keeps the rest of us trundling along the way to a proper family house. No aspect of it is easy, and I really don't give a fuck if one person thinks I'm smug and one person thinks I'm whining, because I'm the one that's been through it all and I know it took a lot of work and a lot of frustration. We all choose our own route through life, often by instinct, and I don't think I've slagged off anyone else's choices?
Posted by herbs (Member # 101) on :
ETA: Vogon.The owner would just need a delusional couple comprising a vague, hen-pecked man and screeching posho girlfriend, who think the flat's location on the border of somewhere posh outweighs the syringes, human faece and fires on the stairs, and marauding kids outside. That's who I've just sold my ex-Council gaff to.
ETA also: I seem to be a smug home-owning, capitalist bastard. Oh well.
[ 03.08.2005, 05:58: Message edited by: herbs ]
Posted by Darryn.R (Member # 1) on :
I don't know about anyone else here but when I bought my first house back in the late 80's (Two bedroom flat in Victorian semi detached, new kitchen and bathroom and fitted carpets) on the market for 48'000 GBP and I put in an offer of 42'000 which was taken I thought I'd made a good first step onto the property ladder and that my mortgage of some 280 GBP a month was fine and dandy. Here I go I thought, this is a nice little earner, a nest egg I have equity.
Come 1992 interest rates rocketed and my 280 a month shot to closer to 450 a month, the house once valued at 48'000 for which I paid 42'000 was now valued at 35'000 - GREAT
I struggled for a year like that till I lost my job and then it all caved in wonderfully. I rented my flat to someone for the cost of the 'finally fixed' mortgage of 400 GBP a month plus bills, a sum I personally couldn't afford, so even though I owned the place on paper I couldn't live in it. In the end I sold the flat for 37'000 along with all contents the TV's, videos, stereo, New kitchen stuff I'd put in, horrible late 80's black ash Habitat furniture and couches, the beds and whatever else of mine there was still left in the flat for which they gave me an extra 3 grand.
I had nothing, and was living on a mates floor in Gorinchem BUT at least I'd pretty much paid back the bank and the money pit was gone.
Buying a house is no safe and easy way to make a few bob, in fact at that point in time I would have been better off renting as all I really managed to do was pay to live there, sell at a loss and spunk the deposit money I put down up the wall.
I was poor, proper top notch poor.
Do I win a prize for the best fuck up ?
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: What, non-responses from both of you?
But you didn't make a point worth responding to, you just caricatured what I was saying in a particularly melodramatic fashion. I even thought you might be half-joking until you posted the above comment.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: Also - the price someone would pay to have a conservatory erected (or a new bathroom fitted or whatever) is not simply the cost of the materials used - it also covers workers fees etc, so it's not like I'm trying to say the effect of home improvement should simply be based on the physical value of the materials used, I do think that the outlay of the previous owners should be covered, but not improved upon.
After all, what have they done to deserve thousands for making a few phone calls?
I just think that people, in general, are actually morons, much like Thorn said. I really can't think of a single other reason why anyone would pay so much more than a house is really worth, just to save themselves the hassle of having the improvements done themselves.
Well, it depends on how long they're wanting to live in a place and whether they have the time or inclination to expend a lot of time and money bringing it up to scratch. Someone with a large family or a particularly demanding job - or who loathed dealing with 'tradespeople' - might just not want the hassle. I suppose you can call all such people "lazy" if you wish, but it doesn't really show much effort on your part to try and understand people with motivations and priorities that are different from yours.
The concept of what something's "really worth" is meaningless. If twice as many people want a four-bedroom house as want a two-bedroom house, the price of the former will inevitably climb faster. There's also the question of how buoyant the market is - you'd be perfectly happy to pay five grand more than it was worth a year ago for a house that is likely to be worth another twenty grand more in a year's time.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben:
quote:Originally posted by dang65: What, non-responses from both of you?
But you didn't make a point worth responding to, you just caricatured what I was saying in a particularly melodramatic fashion. I even thought you might be half-joking until you posted the above comment.
Well, the point was supposed to be that you've gone through the whole thread acting as if I believe myself to be a victim of a great injustice who demands aid from the state, which I don't, and Black Mask has gone through the whole thread acting as if I'm a fat capitalist that wants aid taken away from those who already get it, which I don't.
Once I'd tried to point that out, you both came back with the same kind of comments again. Maybe both were meant in jest (as I say, this thread is acting a bit schizo on the humour front), but I do admit they riled me somewhat when I think there's a genuine debate to be had here which is contantly being waylaid by a misunderstanding of my personal opinions.
I do still have a sense of humour somewhere about the place, honest.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
Well...
quote:This is the catch within our society, that there is always a requirement for one section of society to pay out at all times and never ever be paid back in order to support another section of society which receives at all times and never ever pays out.
doesn't half sound like someone who feels he's 'the victim of a great injustice'. And I don't think you were joking there, either.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: doesn't half sound like someone who feels he's 'the victim of a great injustice'. And I don't think you were joking there, either.
Is that the source of this misunderstanding? Because that was a statement of the situation, an acknowledgement of fact, not a complaint. Maybe it's where I said, "This is the catch"? But that's no different from saying, "This is the catch, you go a couple of quid overdrawn on your bank account and they charge you £££s of fees, stay in credit all month and they give you 25p interest." It wouldn't mean I feel the victim of injustice, or even that I was moaning about it... that's the deal with banks, it's how they work.
Sorry if the "catch within our society" thing did come across wrong, but it honestly and seriously wasn't meant to sound like it apparently did.
In fact, thinking back, I believe I was complaining that the people who pay out all the time appear to be sneered at rather than acknowledged or appreciated. It's the old, "Those that can afford to pay" thing. So, yes, there probably is some mild bitterness there, but not a feeling of injustice, more of confusion I suppose.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang, from his jacuzzi, in his palace, typed by a flunky: This is the catch within our society, that there is always a requirement for one section of society to pay out at all times and never ever be paid back in order to support another section of society which receives at all times and never ever pays out.
Your payback is that the government maintain order so the non-payers don't hang you rich bastards by your own intestines, while your stolen art treasures and executive gadgets burn in great glittering piles, as black flags are hoisted above your well-appointed detached houses with 85' gardens and handy access to transport links, good schools and all local amenities.
[ 03.08.2005, 07:38: Message edited by: Black Mask ]
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask: Your payback is that the government maintain order so the non-payers don't hang you rich bastards by your own intestines, while your stolen art treasures and executive gadgets burn in great glittering piles, as black flags are hoisted above your well-appointed detached houses with 85' gardens and handy access to transport links, good schools and all local amenities.
Roll on the day, brother.
Er, I mean, shocking talk, have that peasant taken away and beaten or shot or whatever they do these days.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
There was a headline on the BBC news site yesterday: Braindead Woman Gives Birth. Hardly a nwes story. It happens every day where I live.
Posted by Waynster (Member # 56) on :
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
