I1L2T3 Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 what would be a good initial amount £10 , £20 , £100m .? Or anything that Jeremy says would be ok ? Eh? The appropriate response IMO would be money is no object given the unprecedented scale of this disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hackey lad Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 how do you know it isn't ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 how do you know it isn't ? I don't but it would be better if precise figures weren't used. That gives it the feel of a donation to a foreign disaster or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JNewton69 Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 They are PRIVATE property ,and Corbin must have been on the magic mushrooms to come out with this cobblers. ---------- Post added 16-06-2017 at 22:09 ---------- No they shouldnt. Its up to the owner if they rent them out or choose to leave them empty at certain times. He's giving people hope and the belief that there's a better way of doing things. I get the impression that's something you hate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 Sometimes I despair. The bodies are still up there, families are still looking for their loved ones not knowing if they're dead or alive, and here are people squabbling about money and real estate... Some people should be ashamed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carosio Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 Bear in mind that the environment in there is highly toxic even though the fires are out, and in many flats all that is left of everything that was in it is a pile of charred ashes on the floor. Only personnel wearing protective clothing and breathing equipment will be allowed in and any disturbance could result in cross-contamination of DNA samples. Also it might be structually dangerous in some parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Grindley Posted June 17, 2017 Share Posted June 17, 2017 I understand the thought behind what he is saying but it can't happen. You can't just take someone's property and do as you please with it, that's verging on a dictatorship. Hopefully the owners of these flats will voluntarily give them up to help. You can do exactly that. You own stuff because the state says so. That the state is owned by us via democracy is a very nice and recent idea. It would be easy to have a 5% tax of value of property for any property that was vacant for a year or more. With the capacity to have inspections of anybody doing some sort of fiddle past this rule. That would sort it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted June 17, 2017 Share Posted June 17, 2017 You know sometimes I wonder if I did the right thing by leaving then I read stuff like this. Politics of envy much.... Politics of envy? I am a landlord. I earn considerably above average wages, in fact more than double it. I am privately educated and was once an army officer. Not quite sure your description of me fits OB but keep trying. ---------- Post added 17-06-2017 at 22:00 ---------- What happens to the landlord's income from the property's inflation value? How is he supposed to pay the mortgage he has taken out on the house? Since we all want to help, why can't the houses/flats be purchased by the state, not just stolen? Well the landlord gets nothing from house value appreciation. I don't believe any property should ever be bought simply to 'appreciate'. You pay the mortgage via your rental income or top it up through money you earn via another job. Why should someone else pay your mortgage for you? Why should you be able to speculate on the housing market removing a property from someone else? To add, I own a house I rent out. I haven't increased the rent for over 10 years as my tenants have stayed put and it works for both of us. I maintain the house above required standards and the rent I get covers my interest on my mortgage and maintenance costs. His rent does not cover my capital repayment and neither damn well should it. Me and my ex bought the house, my relationship broke down so I've got a house I never intended to rent in negative equity. To make profit off someone else just isn't on my radar, I'd just like to come out of this neutral and I've offered to sell the house to my tenants for less than market value as that would clear my mortgage and let them get on the housing market. Sadly they weren't able to buy it as they couldn't get the mortgage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JNewton69 Posted June 17, 2017 Share Posted June 17, 2017 Politics of envy? I am a landlord. I earn considerably above average wages, in fact more than double it. I am privately educated and was once an army officer. Not quite sure your description of me fits OB but keep trying. If you're skint and you complain it's the politics of envy. If you've got a few quid and you complain you're a champagne Socialist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted June 17, 2017 Share Posted June 17, 2017 If you're skint and you complain it's the politics of envy. If you've got a few quid and you complain you're a champagne Socialist. Yeah pretty much. I do have an ironing lady though, so I really am a champagne socialist! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now