Things that piss you off that shouldn't

[tonyh29]

12 hours ago, bickster said:

Do you know any poor people with three homes?

yes  .. foreveryoung 

[Genie]

42 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

The turkey one I went to had magnums included! They had little ice cream fridges dotted around with magnums and cornettos to help yourself, they also had little drinks trucks around the huge pool so it was only like a 30 second walk for a beer no matter where you were whereas this one is a good 5 mins to 1 bar, like as I'm here now in the kids club area my wife's gone for a 15 minute walk there and back to get me a coke cos everywhere else is closed until later, turkey put bottles of coke in your fridge every day

Like I said should piss me off cos it's all perfectly fine I've just been spoiled elsewhere I guess

I’ve been looking at Turkey / Turkiye as you get a lot of bang for your buck at their resorts but unfortunately seem to mainly have terrible flight times.

[Rds1983]

Whether someone is rich or poor is all relative.

Someone with free homes/flats could easily be considered extremely well off or basically a nobody depending who they are compared against.

I think everyone on here would consider Wes Edens ridiculously wealthy being worth £2b or so. 

However Nassef Sawiris is worth 4 or 5 times that, not including his family money.

But to someone like Elon Musk, even Sawiris would be considered poor as he's worth 20 or 30 times what he is. Sadly, to someone like Elon, owning 3 average properties would be completely inconsequential as he'd spend more on a jolly.

There are most definitely poor people in the world who live in extreme poverty and need support. To.support these people we need to look at better challenging the extremely wealthy rather than those who are more comfortable. 

[chrisp65]

14 minutes ago, Rds1983 said:

Whether someone is rich or poor is all relative.

Someone with free homes/flats could easily be considered extremely well off or basically a nobody depending who they are compared against.

I think everyone on here would consider Wes Edens ridiculously wealthy being worth £2b or so. 

However Nassef Sawiris is worth 4 or 5 times that, not including his family money.

But to someone like Elon Musk, even Sawiris would be considered poor as he's worth 20 or 30 times what he is. Sadly, to someone like Elon, owning 3 average properties would be completely inconsequential as he'd spend more on a jolly.

There are most definitely poor people in the world who live in extreme poverty and need support. To.support these people we need to look at better challenging the extremely wealthy rather than those who are more comfortable. 

Alternatively, you could believe nobody should have 3 homes until everybody has 1.

If I was born and raised in a village and I’ve been priced out of living around friends and family and my job and the local school because other people are buying up multiple properties then I’m not that bothered if they were bought by Elon Musk or a chancer from up the road that got offered a buy to let mortgage when interest rates were low.

[Rds1983]

1 minute ago, chrisp65 said:

Alternatively, you could believe nobody should have 3 homes until everybody has 1.

If I was born and raised in a village and I’ve been priced out of living around friends and family and my job and the local school because other people are buying up multiple properties then I’m not that bothered if they were bought by Elon Musk or a chancer from up the road that got offered a buy to let mortgage when interest rates were low.

I only own one home.

Wealth is still relative. 

I'm just suggesting that maybe instead of attacking someone who is only slightly better off than the average (compared to the extremes), maybe focus should be aimed higher where it would make a bigger difference. 

It's like 2 ants arguing over crumbs when there's a giant foot hovering above their heads.

[chrisp65]

Just now, Rds1983 said:

I only own one home.

Wealth is still relative. 

I'm just suggesting that maybe instead of attacking someone who is only slightly better off than the average (compared to the extremes), maybe focus should be aimed higher where it would make a bigger difference. 

It's like 2 ants arguing over crumbs when there's a giant foot hovering above their heads.

I’ve got no argument with wealth or relative wealth. I’m comfortable with people being rich and I absolutely appreciate that I had the money for heating and food all through the winter.

Introducing middle men seeking profit between people and homes is my gripe. 

[Rds1983]

6 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I’ve got no argument with wealth or relative wealth. I’m comfortable with people being rich and I absolutely appreciate that I had the money for heating and food all through the winter.

Introducing middle men seeking profit between people and homes is my gripe. 

That's fair and in some ways I agree. I'm certainly not trying to defend people in that position. 

I just feel that possibly small time operators with 3 or so homes shouldn't be put in the same bucket as the obscenely wealthy (why is there only one word for rich?).

Lots of people owning a few homes will drive prices up. However, would it drive prices up more than one individual or a single firm owning 50,000 firms?

There is also a need for a rental market as even if houses were cheaper, people would still need to save up for them or not be mature enough for that responsibility (I rented until my 30s and a mortgage would have ruined me). It's a difficult situation with no easy answers. 

[Davkaus]

10 minutes ago, Rds1983 said:

There is also a need for a rental market as even if houses were cheaper, people would still need to save up for them or not be mature enough for that responsibility (I rented until my 30s and a mortgage would have ruined me). It's a difficult situation with no easy answers. 

This is true, there are lots of people who, for one reason or another, are better of not forking out for a mortgage. Surely the state should be doing better than the alternative being to pay off someone else's mortgage, though.

I also think it's important to realise that attacking the idea of the economic system we live under enabling, if not encouraging behaviour that leads to wider harm isn't an attack on the people who do the "smart" thing of capitalising (ha) on it.

I don't completely blame landlords, I blame the government for enabling private slumlords to thrive. There should be a place for private rentals, with landlords who add value.The vast majority of our landlords don't do that, they're hoarding the limited supply of wealth and making renters pay off their mortgage + profit, and feeling hard done by if they don't make a monthly profit as well as capital gains. There's certainly a sector of people who just want good short-accommodation without obligation, but that's not what most of our renters are, they're people who could afford a mortgage, and more, but are locked out of the rental market by the deposit, and by short supply.

The system is rigged to funnel more and more wealth into the hands of people who already have some, at the expense of people who have none.

Edited June 15, 2023 by Davkaus

[Xela]

27 minutes ago, Rds1983 said:

Wealth is still relative. 

Absolutely. Someone earning £150k a year might be considered rich/wealthy compared to the average UK citizen, but if they have a £200k a year lifestyle then they're probably living payslip to payslip. You could earn half that, have a sensible lifestyle and be much wealthier. 

Lots of people are caught up in the need/desire for materialistic tat and trying to appear better off than they are. Once you realise that isn't important in life, then you'll be happier.

Sorry, bit of a general gripe there! 

[Davkaus]

Just to add, at the same time, I do think some criticism is fair of people who participate in society in a way that they know is actively harmful to other people, but who shrug their shoulders and think "well, if I don't extract this wealth, someone else will".

The government should do more, and are the primary targets of my ire, but individuals should have some accountability for taking decisions that are based on "I'll get mine, **** everyone else".

[bickster]

I don’t care about other people's wealth, I was just pointing out that if someone wants to have a business, then they really shouldn’t complain when they have to pay for a licence to operate that business. I have to do it, market traders have to do it, pubs have to do it. It’s a cost of the business, deal with it. 
 

It’s a very very me me me thing to complain about. And if you can’t afford the cost of the business, get rid of he business.

[chrisp65]

14 minutes ago, Xela said:

Absolutely. Someone earning £150k a year might be considered rich/wealthy compared to the average UK citizen, but if they have a £200k a year lifestyle then they're probably living payslip to payslip. You could earn half that, have a sensible lifestyle and be much wealthier. 

Lots of people are caught up in the need/desire for materialistic tat and trying to appear better off than they are. Once you realise that isn't important in life, then you'll be happier.

Sorry, bit of a general gripe there! 

I think you’re describing rich but economically incontinent. Known as ‘doing a Johnson’.

[Rds1983]

31 minutes ago, bickster said:

I don’t care about other people's wealth, I was just pointing out that if someone wants to have a business, then they really shouldn’t complain when they have to pay for a licence to operate that business. I have to do it, market traders have to do it, pubs have to do it. It’s a cost of the business, deal with it. 
 

It’s a very very me me me thing to complain about. And if you can’t afford the cost of the business, get rid of he business.

Agreed.

Activity X costs Y, then you need to pay Y.

However, people should be able to query/challenge what certain elements of the cost are. Just as people should be free to query/challenge other things (such as other people owning multiple homes or posters complaining about other posters complaining).

[chrisp65]

9 minutes ago, Rds1983 said:

Agreed.

Activity X costs Y, then you need to pay Y.

However, people should be able to query/challenge what certain elements of the cost are. Just as people should be free to query/challenge other things (such as other people owning multiple homes or posters complaining about other posters complaining).

Thing is, councils have to raise money, so it isn’t necessarily the case that they can ‘justify’ a charge directly.

We have an allotment, for years the council saw this as people tending a green lung in the middle of town and they saw it as a recreational facility and even a keep fit option. So they charged £35 p.a. for a plot. Then two years ago, covid, they realised people would pay more, which gave some slight compensation for the drop in income from car parking charges. It went from £35 to £65. 

This year, the council is on its arse and they’ve decided the allotments are £100 p.a.. Now, I’m a lucky boy so I’ll probably pay it. I won’t be sending tweets to councillors asking for the hypothecated spend breakdown. I’ll presume it goes in to the overall pot for the good of the community. That might include council wages that they will then spend in the shops down the road.

 

[il_serpente]

11 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I’ve got no argument with wealth or relative wealth. I’m comfortable with people being rich and I absolutely appreciate that I had the money for heating and food all through the winter.

Introducing middle men seeking profit between people and homes is my gripe. 

While I agree with your general sentiment, not all rental properties, landlords and rental situations are equal.

My wife an I may move away to a lower cost area when we retire in few years, buy a home there and rent out our current home.   I won't go into the various reasons, other than to say that the main motivating factor would be to preserve our ability to move back in the future if we choose and our kids' ability to live as adults in the immediate area where they grew up.

Would we be profiting?   Sure.   Would our decision contribute in a small way to the shortage of homes for sale and a resulting upward price pressure?   Probably.  But it's hard to argue that we'd be preventing anyone from buying or affording to live here.  It's a very popular area that has consequently become costly over the years, and not because too many of the homes are rental properties.  People who can contemplate buying or renting here these days are ones who could afford to buy somewhere a little less costly but still reasonably nice and close by.

[Rds1983]

2 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Thing is, councils have to raise money, so it isn’t necessarily the case that they can ‘justify’ a charge directly.

We have an allotment, for years the council saw this as people tending a green lung in the middle of town and they saw it as a recreational facility and even a keep fit option. So they charged £35 p.a. for a plot. Then two years ago, covid, they realised people would pay more, which gave some slight compensation for the drop in income from car parking charges. It went from £35 to £65. 

This year, the council is on its arse and they’ve decided the allotments are £100 p.a.. Now, I’m a lucky boy so I’ll probably pay it. I won’t be sending tweets to councillors asking for the hypothecated spend breakdown. I’ll presume it goes in to the overall pot for the good of the community. That might include council wages that they will then spend in the shops down the road.

 

Agreed.

I'm fully on-board with what the licence fee is for if it helps prevent slumlords.

But people still have the right to moan about it.

Just as they have the option to do something about it, like sell their properties. 

[Rds1983]

3 minutes ago, il_serpente said:

While I agree with your general sentiment, not all rental properties, landlords and rental situations are equal.

My wife an I may move away to a lower cost area when we retire in few years, buy a home there and rent out our current home.   I won't go into the various reasons, other than to say that the main motivating factor would be to preserve our ability to move back in the future if we choose and our kids' ability to live as adults in the immediate area where they grew up.

Would we be profiting?   Sure.   Would our decision contribute in a small way to the shortage of homes for sale and a resulting upward price pressure?   Probably.  But it's hard to argue that we'd be preventing anyone from buying or affording to live here.  It's a very popular area that has consequently become costly over the years, and not because too many of the homes are rental properties.  People who can contemplate buying or renting here these days are ones who could afford to buy somewhere a little less costly but still reasonably nice and close by.

People rent for a whole variety of reasons. 

I've seen 20 room mansions being rented our for eye-watering sums because someone had recently moved to the area and didn't want to buy yet as they weren't sure how long they'd be staying. 

They could afford something most on here couldn't dream of but buying wasn't appropriate. 

[bickster]

16 minutes ago, Rds1983 said:

Agreed.

Activity X costs Y, then you need to pay Y.

However, people should be able to query/challenge what certain elements of the cost are. Just as people should be free to query/challenge other things (such as other people owning multiple homes or posters complaining about other posters complaining).

Well a little bit yes and a whole lot of no.

Firstly, no one was questioning what the money was for as it was clearly demonstrated that it was known what the money was for. What was occurring was that person saying they shouldn’t have to pay it.

Can yo also imagine a situation where an individual involved in a licensed business is allowed to dictate to the body responsible for the licence, what they should and shouldn’t pay or do? That’s quite frankly a ridiculous notion.

Licensing in this country is generally done so there’s a regulatory framework with a regime of inspections to ensure compliance with the law. The licensing generally pays for that to keep their industry safe and the money generated is ringfenced to ensure that compliance checks are undertaken regularly to keep people safe. And in this instance it’s their homes we’re talking about.

An individual really doesn’t have the right to question that nor should they. Now the other thing that generally happens is that the will be an industry body where elected or co-opted representation from that sector can put forward the case for the licensing body to change various parameters around they way they operate and make suggestions accordingly. If that fails then representatives of the trade can choose to come together and test whether the licensing body is acting lawfully in a court of law and that is where the little bit of yes is. But writing to the licensing body moaning about having to pay the licence fee? That’s just going to get filed under B

[Rds1983]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

Well a little bit yes and a whole lot of no.

Firstly, no one was questioning what the money was for as it was clearly demonstrated that it was known what the money was for. What was occurring was that person saying they shouldn’t have to pay it.

Can yo also imagine a situation where an individual involved in a licensed business is allowed to dictate to the body responsible for the licence, what they should and shouldn’t pay or do? That’s quite frankly a ridiculous notion.

Licensing in this country is generally done so there’s a regulatory framework with a regime of inspections to ensure compliance with the law. The licensing generally pays for that to keep their industry safe and the money generated is ringfenced to ensure that compliance checks are undertaken regularly to keep people safe. And in this instance it’s their homes we’re talking about.

An individual really doesn’t have the right to question that nor should they. Now the other thing that generally happens is that the will be an industry body where elected or co-opted representation from that sector can put forward the case for the licensing body to change various parameters around they way they operate and make suggestions accordingly. If that fails then representatives of the trade can choose to come together and test whether the licensing body is acting lawfully in a court of law and that is where the little bit of yes is. But writing to the licensing body moaning about having to pay the licence fee? That’s just going to get filed under B

The original post that started all this involved questioning what it was for and moaning that it seemed like a con.

An individual always has the right (as long as they dont cross the line) to object to and question things that their council (or anyone does). 

There is a major problem when they don't.

That's basic democracy. 

It doesn't mean they're correct, often they are far from it, but they still have the right to challenge and query.

Think of the most ridiculous objection you can think of, idiots still have the right to challenge it. 

I agree with the licence fees, but you have to also allow people to moan about it.

Call it freedom of speech or democracy or whatever you like, but saying people shouldn't have the right to object or question is genuinely concerning. 

[chrisp65]

17 minutes ago, il_serpente said:

While I agree with your general sentiment, not all rental properties, landlords and rental situations are equal.

My wife an I may move away to a lower cost area when we retire in few years, buy a home there and rent out our current home.   I won't go into the various reasons, other than to say that the main motivating factor would be to preserve our ability to move back in the future if we choose and our kids' ability to live as adults in the immediate area where they grew up.

Would we be profiting?   Sure.   Would our decision contribute in a small way to the shortage of homes for sale and a resulting upward price pressure?   Probably.  But it's hard to argue that we'd be preventing anyone from buying or affording to live here.  It's a very popular area that has consequently become costly over the years, and not because too many of the homes are rental properties.  People who can contemplate buying or renting here these days are ones who could afford to buy somewhere a little less costly but still reasonably nice and close by.

So what you’re doing there is exactly what Davkaus described. You are faced with a system where you can make a profit, and in making that profit you also conserve your own options and potentially help your kids live where they know, close to family. Completely logical for you to use the system in that way when that is the system.

That your profit is someone else’s expense, that doesn’t have to concern you. That your preserved option is someone else’s reduced option to live local by family, again that doesn’t have to concern you.

Bit of a piss poor system though. Homes before profit, one for everyone before three for someone.

I’m not expecting to win converts here btw, its just a bit of a personal code.