Are you ever going to post anything that is bike related Kaos?
If you want to vent your frustration about stuff why not join a forum that loves dumb debates.
I will be keeping an eye on this thread and as soon as it gets out of hand, and it will, I will be closing it.
Didn’t he post that thing about his Gixxer once :laugh:.
In his defence when he hands out free legal advice people don’t complain. I guess this is just the price for the legal advice 
General Chat
For all non-bike related discussions, i.e. chit-chat, jokes etc 
The problem with all of your “solutions” is that none of them deal with the underlying problem.
None of what you propose will change the price of housing on the private market.
You claim that right to buy led to higher rental prices, but I don’t believe this to be the truth, higher rental prices followed the price of private housing, you may make a successful argument that the sell-off of Council Homes drove up the price of private housing because there was a loss of alternatives, however, that loss of alternative has FAR more to do with an increase in population and a failure to invest in housing, than it does in selling off Council homes.
Not one of your suggestions does anything except punish Council tenants, by removing any rights they might have, and offers no solution to the overly priced accommodation that many people live in.
I would go so far as to suggest that they are not solutions at all.
+1 
Have to wait til March then I might post up a vid or something about the BCR…
Too many of these politically motivated threads have caused upset :ermm:.Mind you have vowed not to get involved in this one after the last time (steers clear and runs for cover to the Premier League football thread, which is also about bikes:D lol)
So what you want is no general chat in the “General Chat” forum?
Come on team - work harder - just a little more bollax so the bolloxometer can go into the red and this gets locked down.
Fine, then don’t come running to us then when it all gets personal.
never have, never will, when it’s against me. as this is a general chat forum, there’s nothing wrong with general chat.
if there will be personal threats you can do your job as moderator and moderate the posts. also, may be wrong, but your posts implies kaos posts threats, not others, which of course is wrong.
Removing subsidised housing from those who are no longer unable to afford private housing sounds like a good real world solution. Assuming that the government aren’t about to embark on a large scale social housing drive (which they aren’t) then there is a limited amount of space available and the only way I can see to free up that space is to means test the provision of it.
Alternatively, can someone find me a nice cheap subsidised house with a double garage please - I want to get a dirtbike
Well thanks for that, I will just sit here and baby sit you then shall I?
I never implied that kaos posts threats, what I said was that inevitably his annoyed posts/threads do end up with someone getting pissed off. We do try and keep as much up/open as possible to keep you lot happy, I will say as a positive, when Kaos does post up there are plenty of you reading it and they do bring some life to the forum especially when things are slow on the biking front. All I wanted to ask was that nobody takes things too far with their responses and to keep personal insults out of it. Nothing wrong with good debate.
Carry on.
part of a moderator’s job
Other than that, I agree with you. Good debates are always good, and sometimes heat flaring up adds to the fun
We shall carry on
What is this a solution to though?
Firstly, it isn’t subsidised if it reflects the true cost of housing. The bag from Primark that I used as an example earlier, isn’t subsidised, it just reflects the true costs of a handbag, materials, labour etc etc. A Gucci bag doesn’t reflect the true cost of a handbag, just as housing on the private market doesn’t reflect the true cost of housing, it is artificially inflated due to market forces.
So if we accept that it isn’t actually subsidised, doesn’t cost the taxpayer anything, the argument we are left with is simply…why should someone else not have to pay through the nose for housing, if other people do.
If that argument is valid, then surely a similar argument should be, why should some people get to live in a big house while others do not. Why should some people earn vast amounts while others do not.
Merit? We already know that not everyone that has a lot of money deserves it, or has the merit to deserve it. Some people like David Cameron are born into it, just like some Council tenants are tenants due to being the children of Council tenants who received their tenancy after the death of their parents.
So why should David Cameron be allowed to be rich, through no merit and just the opportunity of birth, but a Council tenant shouldn’t be allowed to keep a house that reflects the true cost of housing through an opportunity of birth.
This argument sounds good when applied to the poor, but begins to fall apart once you apply it elsewhere.
I am not a communist.
I am a true believer that if you work hard you should be rewarded for it.
What I don’t like is the idea of housing that is spiralling out of control and the only answer we have for it is…well if you aren’t dirt poor or sick and disabled, you should have to pay an inflated price to simply put a roof over your head.
Housing is a fundamental requirement and it should be the job of the state to make sure that we all have a place to live at a reasonable cost.
Not by attacking the scant housing that exists at a reasonable price, but by attacking the housing that exists that is extortionate.
How do you suggest the state provides housing for 50 million people without just stealing it from the current owners?
I don’t think anyone is attacking the idea of state subsidised housing for those in need (except some batty old tories) but in the absence of a parallel dimension full of state owned property, there has to be some prioritisation. It’s only the same as any other state benefit - you get it until you don’t need it any more.
Social Housing is not a state benefit.
It is the provision of housing which is maintained by a local authority or housing association. You cannot compare someone’s home to their receipt of Unemployment Benefit. They pay for their home, they have done for years on end in some cases. Even if you take a reasonable rent of just £45 a week, to reflect periods of cheaper rent, someone living in their home for the past 25 years would have paid almost £60,000 towards their home. They may have spent considerable time, and money, on DIY, decorating, gardening, home improvements. Yet you feel that it is acceptable to just wander up and say…oh, I see you are earning an arbitrary amount, time for you to move out?
There is also the problem that this argument seems to suggest that Housing is justifiably high in price.
The cost of new housing is determined not by the cost of materials or the cost of labour but instead by the cost of land. It is a fact that 70% of the land is owned by less than 1% of the population. That only 8% of the land is actually developed for housing. (Kevin Cahill 2001). That the population of the UK live on just 10% of the Land. This list comes from a Jon Snow documentary “Whose Britain is it Anyway”
• 10%: Home Owners, Joe publics stake in great Britain inc.
• 15%: Private landowners, everything from golf courses, stud farms and celebrity new rich land.
• 20%: Farmland, a figure made up of some 250.000 small farms.
• 30%: Aristocrats, nearly a third of Britain.
• 1%: Church, its not the land owning power that it was.
• 1%: Crown, all land owned by or on behalf of the royals.
• 3%: Heritage, including the National Trust 800.000 acres and RSPB 300.000 acres.
• 4%: Commercial Institutions, (mainly urban land) owned by pension funds, among others.
• 6%: State, the MoD (600.000 acres) and largest, the Forestry Commission with 2.5 million acres.
• 10%: Infrastructure, Eg: roads, parks , playing fields etc.
Government, Local Authorities, The Crown, Nationalised Industries all own a great deal of land, or many did before privatisation when it was sold off.
There are also only 25 million households in the UK, not 50m.
Housing is artificially high due to many factors, one is the control of the land, but another is the use of property as investment, rather than as housing.
Oh, well building 25 million houses in the next fortnight should be a doddle, I’ll just fetch my wheelbarrow.
You can’t build enough houses to give everyone a council house so what is your solution? Removing the cushie discounts for second homes etc. would be a start (I personally think second home council tax should be at least double the usual, rather than discounted) but it’d be a drop in the ocean if you’re trying to lower house prices. And the most expensive places to live (central London for example) aren’t exactly full of aristocratic estates that we can take over in some kind of peasants revolt.
I don’t really understand what it is that you thinks needs doing.
hi
there are lots of running cost with home, tenants wreck flats, wear n tear, mortgages, empty periods. If someone has a housing Ass. flat but can afford to pay market value so be it they shd pay or move out. Housing Ass should be for the guys that are really struggling.
house prices always increase but the recent madness before the credit crunch was due to cheap borrowing with the added 120% LTV and 5-7x income loans.
If 10% of londoners moved out of rented property and london the prices will fall but the issue is more people are coming into london.
basic 101 supply and demand.
I know this was an example but its not black n white, the primart bag costs a lot less to produce than a gucci bag however the gucci bag will return an higher profit. You missed the RnD storage space in the highend shop etc.
