woody2 Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 sell the lot, it may just cover the debts that are secured on these properties......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 49 minutes ago, Neil Down said: I agree with all but would differ slightly on your item 4 John. Instead of just increased benefits, why not bring back work schemes whereby those claiming benefits who are able to work do so. Pay them a wage for doing work. Or am I over simplifying things? Maybe a bit. Most people on benefits or limited fixed income aren’t “unemployed”. Pensioners, ill, disabled, carers. We have low unemployment. I’ve no objection to work for benefits, but there is a cost in terms of training, supervision, weather and safety gear. Its not like the 1930’s, 1950’s and 1960’s with mass winter unemployment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 40 minutes ago, TheTeapot said: The Issue is the market rents bit though isn't it? £100 per week for a one bedroom falling to bits Abrahams flat is market rent for some people. But if we had adequate supply rents would fall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrie Stevens Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 http://www.colnehousing.co.uk/ John W's outline is very much like the thousands of Housing Associations now running in the UK and which have largely replaced the old "Corpy" idea of the past. One such down on my manor is Colne Housing see link above. They are providing thousands of new homes for social rent. rent to buy, some profit making ventures to finance other social housing and they cover all ages from such as my retirement complex to homes for young families. The Associations are charities with a central govt based regulator https://www.gov.uk/guidance/about-the-regulator-of-social-housing The local council here sold off all the Council houses years ago and many are now private. Central Govt kept most of the money and stopped the Councils building replacements. This task went to the Housing Associations. Chelmsford's Council houses became Chelmer Housing Partnership or "CHP"... The drawback is that the Associations have to accept a certain percentage of "troubled people" for care in the community which can be difficult. Overall the Associations are far more business like and fast moving compared to the Corpy mentality and they can borrow on the market and like Colne Housing above issue bonds... The people who run them tend to be housing professionals and there is a big career opportunity. Some Councils have in house housing associations of a type but mainly they are independent providers. Years ago Allan Bell on Manx Radio said that for some reason I now forget Housing Associations are not possible on the Isle of Man?? Housing Associations have an active trade magazine called "Inside Housing" https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 If market rent was charged they should run at profit. Transfer the value of the shares into the NI or CS Pension. The housing stock is worth far more than any borrowing. Should give a good return and capital appreciation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Down Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 27 minutes ago, John Wright said: Maybe a bit. Most people on benefits or limited fixed income aren’t “unemployed”. Pensioners, ill, disabled, carers. We have low unemployment. I’ve no objection to work for benefits, but there is a cost in terms of training, supervision, weather and safety gear. Its not like the 1930’s, 1950’s and 1960’s with mass winter unemployment. Surely the cost of training/supervision would be beneficial in the long run. Simple things like pot holes, country walkway etc. At least the Island would be getting something out of it. As for training, for every group of DOI workers, add in two trainees. Once capable of working unsupervised then bring in a couple more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxb&b Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 2 hours ago, Neil Down said: I agree with all but would differ slightly on your item 4 John. Instead of just increased benefits, why not bring back work schemes whereby those claiming benefits who are able to work do so. Pay them a wage for doing work. Or am I over simplifying things? I can see the headlines now ''WORK SHY LARD ASS ASKED TO WORK FOR BENEFITS CLAIMS HUMAN RIGHTS INFRINGEMENTS'' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yibble Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 3 hours ago, the stinking enigma said: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/business-43788537 One third of millenials face renting for their entire lifetimes. Depending on your stance its either pretty shameful or an ideal investment opportunity Or that current house prices are a speculatively (or 'fear of missing out') driven bubble, further inflated by unsustainability low interest rates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 1 hour ago, Neil Down said: Surely the cost of training/supervision would be beneficial in the long run. Simple things like pot holes, country walkway etc. At least the Island would be getting something out of it. As for training, for every group of DOI workers, add in two trainees. Once capable of working unsupervised then bring in a couple more Seen it with probationers. Never reach the unsupervised standard. Ever. Without wanting to sound prejudiced or arrogant, we have a stratae of society that simply doesn't want to work, to the degree that they're incapable of it, if not determined to be so. And why not? No one ever obliges them to be otherwise (see "human rights" comment in one of the above posts). Easier to just pay the bennies rather than struggle to get anything out of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Down Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 55 minutes ago, manxb&b said: I can see the headlines now ''WORK SHY LARD ASS ASKED TO WORK FOR BENEFITS CLAIMS HUMAN RIGHTS INFRINGEMENTS'' Uncannily accurate... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Down Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 30 minutes ago, Non-Believer said: Seen it with probationers. Never reach the unsupervised standard. Ever. Without wanting to sound prejudiced or arrogant, we have a stratae of society that simply doesn't want to work, to the degree that they're incapable of it, if not determined to be so. And why not? No one ever obliges them to be otherwise (see "human rights" comment in one of the above posts). Easier to just pay the bennies rather than struggle to get anything out of them. Just stop the payments then. They can only take out what they've put in (if anything) nobody should have the "right" to benefits. Address that problem if you will (not you NB, the charlatans in power) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrie Stevens Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 It is impossible to only take out that which you have put in. Whatever you get will never be covered by your tax and insurance over many years. No one really has a "right"...You have to claim..You have to claim even your state pension and even then they try and get you to defer it for a few years hoping that statistically many will die and reduce the bill. I am audited every year by the DWP and the slightest rise in my private pension gets knocked off elsewhere. By the way not a lot of people know that (in the UK at least) your occupational/finally salary pension can be reduced a thousand or two once you get the state pension. There has been a lot of publicity recently. HKSB I think it was clawed back about £1,500 to £2,000 off its pensioners once they got the state pension. So a final pension of £8,000 as was exampled was cut down to more like £6,000. Apparently it is legal. It was on BBC Radio 4 "Money Box" so can probably still be got from the archives as it was only a week or two ago.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIchard Britten Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 I know the flak I am going to get for this... What percentage of those on benefits are "able non-working" as opposed to "unable non-working" or "pension non-working" etc? Is the problem as big as some of the knee jerkers are making out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Down Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 15 minutes ago, RIchard Britten said: I know the flak I am going to get for this... What percentage of those on benefits are "able non-working" as opposed to "unable non-working" or "pension non-working" etc? Is the problem as big as some of the knee jerkers are making out? http://www.three.fm/news/isle-of-man-news/benefit-claimant-numbers-queried/ Juan asking the same question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIchard Britten Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 5 minutes ago, Neil Down said: http://www.three.fm/news/isle-of-man-news/benefit-claimant-numbers-queried/ Juan asking the same question. In the UK, "unemployment" benefit only makes up 1% of benefit spending (year ending 2017) https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/articles/howisthewelfarebudgetspent/2016-03-16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.