BBC launches consultation on TV licence fee for over-75s

On 22/11/2018 10:31, charles wrote:
The money, however, stayed with the local authorities, but they weren't
allowed to spend it on new housing.

The first round of money, did, but the windfall on selling to the
private landlords didn't.

The councils couldn't spend it on housing, because Maggie was opposed to
social housing, along with all government expenditure.

On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 18:16:57 +0000, Andrew wrote:

What a prick.

PLONK

On 21/11/2018 20:33, Bill Wright wrote:
On 21/11/2018 18:08, Andrew wrote:

Meanwhile, the generation that are funding the BBC and the NHS with
their taxes, have to live at home or in expensive private
rented accomodation because the over 55's have all the property nicely
bagged.

Like everything else the price of property is determined by supply and
demand. The supply side is diminished by a number of factors, including
builders who buy land and hold it in reserve, and the demand side is
increased by the rise in the population, 60% of which is caused by net
immigration.

Bill

except that the facts disprove that.

When NuLieBour came to power in 1997, the housing market was already
showing signs of getting out of control and far less immigration.

Gordon (for reasons unknown) decided to slash interest rates at the
very time he should have held steady or moderately increased them
(inflation + 1% is the usual rule of thumb). He also opened the door
to US companies offering zero-% credit cards, which from then until 2005
almost trebled house prices (8 times liar loans, deposits paid with
multiple 0% credit cards , 105% mortgages etc etc).

He also trashed private pensions and together with the infamous
mistake by ONS with longevity, made with-profits funds and annuities
dead in the water. People turned their attention to BTL instead. This
all threw petrol on an already blazing housing market.

This was well before the main of influx of east europeans and others
occured, so don't blame immigration, it was sheer greed by the
indigenous brits that caused this.

Meanwhile an army of already or soon to be retired people just watched
their house prices escalate beyond their wildest dreams (cue screams of
'unfair' from those poor souls who took out equity withdrawal or
rolled-up interest-only loans, whose gamble was based on 'normal' house
price inflation).

What Labour chancellors give with one hand, future governments of all
types will take back, one way or another. Removing freebies that were
handed out to buy pensioners votes is just one way they will do it.

The argument that house price inflation is 'zero sum' is the most
arrogant piece of crap I have ever heard. Those who tenaciously
try to hang on to their windfall, untaxed capital gains are in for
one hell of a shock if Corbyn and McDonnell get into power. If
it is 'zero sum' then liability to pay stamp duty should be moved
from the buyer to the seller 'at a stroke'. This means ftb's would
never ever pay any, people moving up would generally pay less and
those at the top who just did nothing to increase their 1956 £2000
house to a £500,000++ house will pay the most.

On 22/11/2018 09:55, David Woolley wrote:
On 21/11/2018 18:08, Andrew wrote:
And how many of those 1.2 million who are renting are living
comfortably in social housing, with all bills paid ?, and with the
door to all those other juicy benefits wide open ?.

Maggie sold off most of the social housing to private landlords (well
actually to sitting tenants, who then sold to private landlords).

Maggie did not sell a single council house.

She made it possible for the (mostly) Labour-voting tenants to buy,
which they did. They could have refused and remained aa tenants and
stuck to their socialist 'principles', but they didn't.

On 21/11/2018 18:08, Andrew wrote:
On 21/11/2018 16:00, Robin wrote:
On 21/11/2018 15:09, Andrew wrote:
On 20/11/2018 15:47, Indy Jess John wrote:
If the BBC actually used that fact rather than demonising the over-75s,

The generation (starting when they were over 55) that have done very
nicely out of 20 years of massive house price inflation, a trebling
of the NHS budget, the triple lock, final salary pensions, free
prescriptions, £6-digit cancer treatments and winter heating bungs.

This is one group that doesn't need a free TV license, effectively
paid for by a generation that doesn't really watch or listen to BBC
output.

I find it rather sad that such issues seem increasingly to be
discussed in terms of stereotypes such as yours above.Â* As one of the
over 65s who does not fit it, I can't help but wonder whether you
choose to ignore or are just ignorant of facts such as there are 1.2
million over-65 households who do *not* own their own home.Â* Home
ownership is also less common among those who worked in manual
occupations, and also among ethnic minorities if that matters to you.


Source for data:
https://www.gov.uk/government/collec...housing-survey




And how many of those 1.2 million who are renting are living
comfortably in social housing, with all bills paid ?, and with the
door to all those other juicy benefits wide open ?.

Meanwhile, the generation that are funding the BBC and the NHS with
their taxes, have to live at home or in expensive private
rented accomodation because the over 55's have all the property nicely
bagged.

what a prick.

On 22/11/2018 12:44, David Woolley wrote:
On 22/11/2018 10:31, charles wrote:
The money, however, stayed with the local authorities, but they weren't
allowed to spend it on new housing.

The first round of money, did, but the windfall on selling to the
private landlords didn't.

The councils couldn't spend it on housing, because Maggie was opposed to
social housing, along with all government expenditure.

But the houses still exist don't they ?, and the money was
recycled back into the economy (apart from those that departed
for Spain etc).

And we had too many council houses back in the 1980's. If you
needed a council house back then you had a choice of several.
Londons population was falling. No-one predicted what it would
be like 15-20 years later.

The reason why she distrusted LA's is obvious. Some of them were
involved in the secondary banking crisis back in the 70's. Camden
was building council houses in the 70's that would end up costing
over a £million, much of it coming from central government anyway
(who still pay about half the domestic 'rates' bill via subsidies)
so actually a big chunk from the sale of council houses should have
gone back to the treasury anyway. Apart from Westminster and the
City of London, few LA's raise enough from council tax(es) to cover
their spending.

On 21/11/2018 18:18, Andrew wrote:
On 21/11/2018 17:45, charles wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* Andrew wrote:
On 20/11/2018 15:47, Indy Jess John wrote:
If the BBC actually used that fact rather than demonising the over-75s,

The generation (starting when they were over 55) that have done very
nicely out of 20 years of massive house price inflation,

Until I sell my house, it's not money in my pocket


If Corbyn amd McDonnell get into power, then it most certainly will
be money OUT of your pocket. LOTS.


sooner the better.

On 21/11/2018 20:31, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/11/2018 18:21, Andrew wrote:

They make programs that their audience research indicates what
is desired.

I think that's the point that many have already made here, they don't.
They make programs that they think will attract the audience they *want*
to attract!

Hence daytime wall-to-wall property spivving, cooking, quizzing and
the occasional soap. Plus plenty of repeats.

Well it's strange, I'm old, and quite a few of my family and neighbours
are, yet I know of no-one who wastes their time watching such crap. Most
of us have got better things to do.

It's time you stopped peddling Daily Mail style stereotypes and learned
to think based on factual information.

And there you go again.

Anyone who doesn't hold your point of view must be a 'daily mail'
reader.

Does this mean you are a guardian or inde reader ?.

On 22/11/2018 19:42, critcher wrote:
On 21/11/2018 18:18, Andrew wrote:
On 21/11/2018 17:45, charles wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* Andrew wrote:
On 20/11/2018 15:47, Indy Jess John wrote:
If the BBC actually used that fact rather than demonising the
over-75s,

The generation (starting when they were over 55) that have done very
nicely out of 20 years of massive house price inflation,

Until I sell my house, it's not money in my pocket


If Corbyn amd McDonnell get into power, then it most certainly will
be money OUT of your pocket. LOTS.


sooner the better.

If you have more bedrooms than occupants then I hope you can
afford the transfer of the bedroom tax from social tenants to
owner occupiers, plus means-testing of the single person discount
(where applicable), plus the garden tax (about 3% of your properties
value every year, not just when you move), plus revaluation to keep
the welsh happy (already occurred there), plus a collapse of Sterling
(making everything more expensive), plus another 2008/9 recession.

On 22/11/2018 19:45, Andrew wrote:
On 21/11/2018 20:31, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/11/2018 18:21, Andrew wrote:

They make programs that their audience research indicates what
is desired.

I think that's the point that many have already made here, they don't.
They make programs that they think will attract the audience they
*want* to attract!

Hence daytime wall-to-wall property spivving, cooking, quizzing and
the occasional soap. Plus plenty of repeats.

Well it's strange, I'm old, and quite a few of my family and
neighbours are, yet I know of no-one who wastes their time watching
such crap. Most of us have got better things to do.

It's time you stopped peddling Daily Mail style stereotypes and
learned to think based on factual information.

And there you go again.

Take a look in the mirror! What a clockwork toy! Who is it that in the
last hour or so has made in this thread three posts full of political
diarrhea and vomit without a single fact supported by any provenance
whatsoever? You just puke it out until your clockwork runs down, and
then wind yourself up for the next one, nothing remotely resembling
thought is involved at all.

Anyone who doesn't hold your point of view must be a 'daily mail'
reader.

People who can't be arsed to think properly and instead spew out
right-wing gross simplifications and stereotypes usually turn out to be
Daily Mail readers.

Does this mean you are a guardian or inde reader?

Being able to make up my own mind when given facts, I'm a reader of
factual content. Patently, you are not.