Tango Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 You don't own a house then Albert Tatlock? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 You don't own a house then Albert Tatlock? Own one and rent one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 The best solution I ever read was from a poster (can't remember who sorry) on here who suggested that first time buyers get council houses and half their rent is saved away by govt for a deposit on their own property so they can move out after a year or 5 and the procedure can be repeated OMFG it was me! Im not always mad in my ideas then thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxlennie Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 What is the problem here? Is it that people are generally concerned for the lower income families that cannot get a council house because of the lack of stock? Or that some of you who have decided to be brave enough to buy your own house, as a financial asset, have difficulty accepting that people who rent council houses may have a bigger car than you? Is there an actual shortage of housing for households or just lack of affordable housing? If there is enough stock, and as we know housing operates in a market, then it is inevitable that the people who are most likely to be left out will be those who have least resources. They cannot obtain accommodation, or have to live in unfit accommodation. The shortage also leads to increasing prices, creating problems in the supply of Affordable Housing. So, should the government introduce rent controls in the private sector? That has a whole new area of problems. The key words here are Affordable Housing. 'Affordable housing' is housing that is defined as being 'affordable' in the local context, and which covers a spectrum of outcomes including 'low cost' and 'subsidised'.Not forgetting housing key workers.The role of the local authority in defining 'affordability' with specific reference to incomes, house prices and rents is governed by the DOLGE. Our DOLGE have capped the gross amount you can earn to be eligible to obtain a Local Authority property at £27,750, then add £2,325 for each child until you reach a maximum of £34,725 That means that with a rent of aprox £320 a month for a three bed property you have enough left over to live comfortably, and why should that not be? If, as suggested by some, you introduce means testing to the council market then surely it is good business practice to house the people who will pay more rent. Therefore creating more monies for repairs etc as a Housing Authority is only permitted to spend 33.5% on minor maintenance and day to day repairs and the balance used for new stock. I do agree that a single occupancy of a three bed roomed property is a misuse of stock, however the LHA do yearly checks on this, and it is written in most tenancy agreements that you can be moved, how they act on this information is really down to each individual authority. So tell me, why should a hard working individual not have his /her holiday and drive a nice car? God knows they have earned it! If they have prioritized that their luxuries in life are a car, sky TV instead of a load of bricks then that is their choice. Obviously there are people who abuse the system as with everything; we do not live in a Utopia. However I do believe these to be a minority. Instead of criticizing individuals who obviously work hard, who chose to spend their expendable income on things other than bricks and mortar, you should be lobbying your MHKs and Commissioners reading their manifestos to ensure they are voicing your opinions and most off all controlling immigration because that is where a huge percentage of our housing stock has gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 What is the problem here? Is it that people are generally concerned for the lower income families that cannot get a council house because of the lack of stock? Or that some of you who have decided to be brave enough to buy your own house, as a financial asset, have difficulty accepting that people who rent council houses may have a bigger car than you? Is there an actual shortage of housing for households or just lack of affordable housing? If there is enough stock, and as we know housing operates in a market, then it is inevitable that the people who are most likely to be left out will be those who have least resources. They cannot obtain accommodation, or have to live in unfit accommodation. The shortage also leads to increasing prices, creating problems in the supply of Affordable Housing. So, should the government introduce rent controls in the private sector? That has a whole new area of problems. The key words here are Affordable Housing. 'Affordable housing' is housing that is defined as being 'affordable' in the local context, and which covers a spectrum of outcomes including 'low cost' and 'subsidised'.Not forgetting housing key workers.The role of the local authority in defining 'affordability' with specific reference to incomes, house prices and rents is governed by the DOLGE. Our DOLGE have capped the gross amount you can earn to be eligible to obtain a Local Authority property at £27,750, then add £2,325 for each child until you reach a maximum of £34,725 That means that with a rent of aprox £320 a month for a three bed property you have enough left over to live comfortably, and why should that not be? If, as suggested by some, you introduce means testing to the council market then surely it is good business practice to house the people who will pay more rent. Therefore creating more monies for repairs etc as a Housing Authority is only permitted to spend 33.5% on minor maintenance and day to day repairs and the balance used for new stock. I do agree that a single occupancy of a three bed roomed property is a misuse of stock, however the LHA do yearly checks on this, and it is written in most tenancy agreements that you can be moved, how they act on this information is really down to each individual authority. So tell me, why should a hard working individual not have his /her holiday and drive a nice car? God knows they have earned it! If they have prioritized that their luxuries in life are a car, sky TV instead of a load of bricks then that is their choice. Obviously there are people who abuse the system as with everything; we do not live in a Utopia. However I do believe these to be a minority. Instead of criticizing individuals who obviously work hard, who chose to spend their expendable income on things other than bricks and mortar, you should be lobbying your MHKs and Commissioners reading their manifestos to ensure they are voicing your opinions.... With you 100% up to that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxlennie Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 What is the problem here? Is it that people are generally concerned for the lower income families that cannot get a council house because of the lack of stock? Or that some of you who have decided to be brave enough to buy your own house, as a financial asset, have difficulty accepting that people who rent council houses may have a bigger car than you? Is there an actual shortage of housing for households or just lack of affordable housing? If there is enough stock, and as we know housing operates in a market, then it is inevitable that the people who are most likely to be left out will be those who have least resources. They cannot obtain accommodation, or have to live in unfit accommodation. The shortage also leads to increasing prices, creating problems in the supply of Affordable Housing. So, should the government introduce rent controls in the private sector? That has a whole new area of problems. The key words here are Affordable Housing. 'Affordable housing' is housing that is defined as being 'affordable' in the local context, and which covers a spectrum of outcomes including 'low cost' and 'subsidised'.Not forgetting housing key workers.The role of the local authority in defining 'affordability' with specific reference to incomes, house prices and rents is governed by the DOLGE. Our DOLGE have capped the gross amount you can earn to be eligible to obtain a Local Authority property at £27,750, then add £2,325 for each child until you reach a maximum of £34,725 That means that with a rent of aprox £320 a month for a three bed property you have enough left over to live comfortably, and why should that not be? If, as suggested by some, you introduce means testing to the council market then surely it is good business practice to house the people who will pay more rent. Therefore creating more monies for repairs etc as a Housing Authority is only permitted to spend 33.5% on minor maintenance and day to day repairs and the balance used for new stock. I do agree that a single occupancy of a three bed roomed property is a misuse of stock, however the LHA do yearly checks on this, and it is written in most tenancy agreements that you can be moved, how they act on this information is really down to each individual authority. So tell me, why should a hard working individual not have his /her holiday and drive a nice car? God knows they have earned it! If they have prioritized that their luxuries in life are a car, sky TV instead of a load of bricks then that is their choice. Obviously there are people who abuse the system as with everything; we do not live in a Utopia. However I do believe these to be a minority. Instead of criticizing individuals who obviously work hard, who chose to spend their expendable income on things other than bricks and mortar, you should be lobbying your MHKs and Commissioners reading their manifestos to ensure they are voicing your opinions.... With you 100% up to that point. We all make mistakes And it isnt a dig either as I married Manx and was not born here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skig Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 All residencial property that is not owner occupied should be heavilly taxed. All landlords should be compelled by law to automatically disclose to a rent tribunal how much they are taking from their tenants and the tribunal should have the power to set a lower figure if (as in most cases) the figure is to high. All profits by the greedy landlords that are not ploughed back into the upkeep of the property should then be taxed at 50% The politics of envy. What exactly would this strategy achieve? Every individual has the right to live in decent affordable accomodation. No one has the right to exploit people,as happens in the private sector. Rachman is alive and well and living in the Isle of Man. What would my stategy achieve? It would stop people like you from prospering by your low life methods. Also in answer to John who sits on the rent tribunal - most tenants are sh*t scared to complain, knowing they will be out on the street if they open their mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chufty Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Living in a Corporation or DOLGE House and at the same time being an owner of a Property is not against the law, it is very common on the Island and is also practiced by those that make the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tango Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Living in a Corporation or DOLGE House and at the same time being an owner of a Property is not against the law, it is very common on the Island and is also practiced by those that make the rules. I got so angry when I read that that I actually went to punch my computer screen. That is a fucking scandal if it's true. Seriously Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Every individual has the right to live in decent affordable accomodation. Actually they don't, although they should. No one has the right to exploit people,as happens in the private sector. Actually they do, although they shouldn't. Rachman is alive and well and living in the Isle of Man. Is he? He was rather popular amongst many of his tenants you know. I think you'll find he died in the sixties though. What would my stategy achieve? It would stop people like you from prospering by your low life methods. What a queer post to make, knowing, as you do, nothing whatsoever about me or my methods. Your strategy could seriously backfire by driving decent landlords from the sector. Which would be a bad thing regardless of what you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 You don't own a house then Albert Tatlock? Own one and rent one. That's own one on the island - rent one in the UK - as it's far cheaper than hotels etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 rent one in the UK - as it's far cheaper than hotels etc. Presumably from the private sector? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 rent one in the UK - as it's far cheaper than hotels etc. Presumably from the private sector? Yes - through a letting agent. Robbing ****rds! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Kerr Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 TBH I don't really begrudge the couple on £65K per year their £250 per month house, it's a very tempting proposition and how many people would "do the noble thing" and fuck themselves over to rent in private for £500 extra per month more if they had a Corpy house? I bloody well do. If you have a couple earning that sort of income there is no damn way they should be allowed to stay in council accomodation. Its fine talking about more council housing stock and stock in general (which we need) - but people like this have a duty to f**k off when they can afford to or at least pay full whack to stay where they are (as this at least generates more money for the council to spend on maintenence and repairs etc) as they are taking up subsidised accomodation which could be happily used by a low income family that needs a roof over their heads. If we charged people over a certain income a full market rent, they'd get a mortgage and free up a council house as it would make financial sense to do so. Nobody in their right mind if they could afford to would stay in council housing if the rents were linked to high incomes so it would free up a lot of stock. I'm sick of hearing people who live in council property with villas in Spain and the like, as it defeats the purpose of social housing - at at the same time you have young families with kids living in a bedsit because some selfish gits earning £65k a year are taking up a 3 bedroomed house that could give them a family home. They are just selfish bastards to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 a letting agent. Robbing ****rds! So, if the housing stock is increased, demand falls and therefore prices. Ergo, the maintenance of what is effectively your second home also falls? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.