|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 15, 2024 12:56:48 GMT
The stated case is that somebody got banned from CWDF for being pro-Israel. But this was clearly a pretext. I guess you have to subscribe to the groupthink over there. However, at no stage have I stated that I'm pro-Israel. If you're going to paraphrase, at least get the gist of things right.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 15, 2024 12:06:06 GMT
So you are saying that increasing supply won't help with the issue? FFS! You have also left out the finance cost when buying, claiming only rental values and purchase price are deciding factors? So it's not the fault of the landlord leverages beyond his means and the Liz Truss fucks the market, rates go up? Said landlord would likely have cheered her in to power too! You really need to take a wider view, if you want to be anything near a financial expert. Once the shit has hit the fan and it all calms down, lower rents will be better for society as a whole. My mum worked as a secretary in Rochdale rent office back in the day when rents were controlled, I had one property still registered, on relatively low rent, still made a profit on rent without screwing the tenant. What I'm saying is that demand is equal to supply in the determination of the reason/s for a shortage. Only the rental value and the purchase price are required for the calculation of gross yield. Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the word 'gross'. You might view that last scenario as profitable but a wise investor would calculate their yield based on the current value of the property. This scenario would represent a significant loss of potential profit so not profitable at all.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 15, 2024 10:57:04 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cxr33l9dx0yoDespite such matters being widely reported Labour's solutions include the formation of a national register of landlords, and limiting rent increases within the tenancy period. Making landlords pay to be registered: Will likely lead to further rent increases and/ or more landlords selling up. Limiting rent increases within the tenancy period will likely lead to higher rents being requested at the start of a tenancy. Or, more landlords selling up. Landlords selling up leads to higher rents all round, of course, as well as exacerbating the shortage. The gross yield on buy to let, at around 3-10% gross, is poor. Hence, few institutional investors. There have been plenty of individual investors who used it as a speculatory tool for capital growth. Houses have a good record for this but the opportunity for capital growth alone is a poor deciding factor to the wise investor. Hence, many investors selling up, their decisions aided by yields which have diminished in the face of rising house values and costs which have accelerated, driven by inflation and most especially, punitive government intervention. It seems that Labour wish to take on the Tories with a major part of their message being 'we are the more able capitalists'. It's a tough sell this one given they don't seem to understand the most basic principles of markets. They really should study markets a little and come back with a better offer. Most especially, cause and effect within markets. That's not the issue though, lack of house building is, all we've had is the usual noisy promises about building new houses, developers wriggle out of building affordable homes, sure some landlords have overstretched themselves while others haven't and are pulling in 10% return, that's fine by me. The houses won't remain empty if sold, a flood of available houses will drop the price too, again helping to solve the housing crisis. What's the problem with registration, if looking after tenants and property properly there is no issue. Its the greedy who will suffer, poor little lambs! It's not the lack of house building. That's your biased view. The issue is the imbalance between demand and supply. Which will be worsened by any measures which further reduce the supply. The returns landlords make has nothing to do with them overstretching themselves. Yields are set by the market i.e. local purchase prices vs. local rental prices.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 15, 2024 7:31:40 GMT
People might post more if the odd poster didn't chip in with 'the forum isn't interested in that' type of responses.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 15, 2024 6:23:17 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cxr33l9dx0yoDespite such matters being widely reported Labour's solutions include the formation of a national register of landlords, and limiting rent increases within the tenancy period. Making landlords pay to be registered: Will likely lead to further rent increases and/ or more landlords selling up. Limiting rent increases within the tenancy period will likely lead to higher rents being requested at the start of a tenancy. Or, more landlords selling up. Landlords selling up leads to higher rents all round, of course, as well as exacerbating the shortage. The gross yield on buy to let, at around 3-10% gross, is poor. Hence, few institutional investors. There have been plenty of individual investors who used it as a speculatory tool for capital growth. Houses have a good record for this but the opportunity for capital growth alone is a poor deciding factor to the wise investor. Hence, many investors selling up, their decisions aided by yields which have diminished in the face of rising house values and costs which have accelerated, driven by inflation and most especially, punitive government intervention. It seems that Labour wish to take on the Tories with a major part of their message being 'we are the more able capitalists'. It's a tough sell this one given they don't seem to understand the most basic principles of markets. They really should study markets a little and come back with a better offer. Most especially, cause and effect within markets.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 13, 2024 7:44:00 GMT
Do as we say, not as we do? Or a new form of colonialism? You seem hung up on the past.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 13, 2024 7:21:04 GMT
We need to address the problems of pollution and consumption, and have been doing so for some years. Cars now are much cleaner and economical than they used to be, and E.V.s will do something more towards this but until the infrastructure is there to support it progress is stilted. The problem is that the 'developing' world where there is still poverty and slavery do not see the need and continue to pollute. Mankind is making great strides in fossil fuel alternatives, and gradually we will become cleaner but thinking needs to be joined up. The current spiel about heatpumps is all well and good, but many urban houses do not have the 2mtx2mtx1.5mt wall space to house one, along with the noise problem to neighbours. Civil disobedience and criminal damage is never the answer to any problems, but when a soft self serving judiciary hands out nothing but warnings and suspended sentences, mere slaps on the wrist, such actions will persist. The time has come to hand out real sentences applicable to the cause. Start by revoking driving licences and passports to stop private motoring, and air travel. This would cost nothing in financing prison sentences, and it would be a case of the punishment fitting the crime. The problem is that while the developed world does what you describe the less developed world develops, as did the developed world emitting vast, ever growing levels of damaging shit. The less developed world makes the case that the developed world were able to do this unchecked. It's only fair that they can do the same. There is merit in this argument. It's only fair. Unfortunately, if we believe the scientists, the planet doesn't give a hoot about concepts such as the human notion of fairness. If the less developed world develops in the way that the developed world did there won't be a planet suitable for the ever growing number of humans to live on. So, regardless of fairness, less developed countries cannot gear up and aim for their their people to be driving cars, living in air conditioned houses and flying around the world, just for fun.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 12, 2024 18:23:14 GMT
Let's hope she's smarter than trying it on again with her previous pitiful attempt at wriggling out of this. I quote: 'It was my only house so no capital gains tax was due.'
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 12, 2024 13:49:21 GMT
There's no point crying over spilt milk. Itβs not crying about spilt milk, itβs about accurate data. Your statement that the uk is only responsible for less than 1% of carbon released into the atmosphere, is only correct from a certain perspective. I was merely pointing this out to you. The old dears were trying to change behaviour in the present and the future, not in the past.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 12, 2024 11:18:23 GMT
The British contribution to emissions is less than 1%. A rounding difference in finance terms or in other words, insignificant. The old dears should book flights to China, India, Indonesia or Brazil, if they really want to make a difference. Depends when you start counting from. It could be said we caused it all by starting the industrial revolution. There's no point crying over spilt milk.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 12, 2024 8:22:34 GMT
The British contribution to emissions is less than 1%. A rounding difference in finance terms or in other words, insignificant.
The old dears should book flights to China, India, Indonesia or Brazil, if they really want to make a difference.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 12, 2024 7:01:05 GMT
The average joe doesn't look at the ftse or any economic indicator much beyond the price of bread and milk...the cons have a massive image problem that they won't surmount in the next six months. I think this is the nub of it. Along with the need for change for change's sake in the minds of many after an extended period of time of little or no change. 'Giving the other lot a go' type of thinking.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 10, 2024 23:01:48 GMT
The FTSE 100 and 250 are doing extraordinarily well ... perhaps business has greater faith in the UK than our politicians ? It does seem bizarre that in, what must surely be the dying days of this government the ONS reports growth higher than any of the G7. Makes you appreciate who's really running the asylum π Rog Share values are complex things, not always directly linked to the success (or otherwise) of the businesses in question. There's a pot of money investors have which gets spread across various investment options. The value of the various options often depends on the perceived relative value of other options. Or, the relative demand for other investment options, which amounts to the same thing. For example: A lot of money has come out of buy to let over the past few years. This has resulted in higher demand for some other investment options and therefore, higher prices. Share prices were given a massive boost during covid. Governments printing money and handing it out to individuals. Very often in sums much higher than they were able to spend in times in which activities were severely restricted. Much of this money was invested. The result? A big spike in share values. And commodities, houses, etc. etc.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 10, 2024 9:55:55 GMT
6 consecutive days out on the kayak now. Built up to my regular 5 mile training runs. Nice 7 mile walk yesterday along the Mawddach Way to Penmaenpool, pint in The George, across the toll bridge, bus back to Barmouth.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 10, 2024 7:28:04 GMT
Aw but you did though, you silly old hypocrite you. Donβt dare question group think on here, the collective will join together to show you whoβs boss. This was an individual asking another to justify/ prove an assertion they made about them. It wasn't groupthink.
|
|