@hunterhhedge@financedystop Yeah you little Zoomers, this man spent 7 hours a day 3 times a week delivering pizzas to be able to afford a good quality of life. You little Zs don't know what it means to work hard.
@ShabanaMahmood Yeah and how will they do that? If you let them work most of them either a)Work for minimum wage (getting a whopping wage deductions of some £10 PW) or b) work exclusively cash in hand.
Do you take the public for cretins or what?
@moving_charlie They will have a mandate for 30% of the estate to house crackheads and all kinds of undesirables. Making the rest of the development unattractive to normal people to live in.
@NajalaSimon@GMBCampaigns It's a dirty nasty job that even most men don't want to do, which by the nature of supply and demand needs to charge a premium wage. Women just want more money working with toddlers. I am becoming more misogynistic daily.
@maxtempers They always want more money. How about you go and work as a binman. No obviously it's a dirty nasty job, and you'd never do that. But hey you desire more money to assist in teaching children, whose scores by any metric are at multidacede low.
I have eyes to see and enough sense to understand that the world will be harder to live in 10 years compared to now.
People took care of one another up to a point, no one fed a 90yo grandma who could not walk because she was a burden to the community and all understood that. Same with children with disabilities, that were drowned at birth because people understood that they are a burden.
Your infantile arguments only prove that you are emotionally a child, and if the times get hard, you will suffer the most.
They also lived trough the greatest economic boom in multiple centuries. Two hundred years ago old people that lived too long were being brought to the forest to die so they wouldn't be a burden to the village. Hardly anyone lived past 70 too.
You can volunteer to give away all your money to the old, but most of us live in the real world, and when young have a hard time, saying to them that they must keep some 90yo alive at the expense of their own, the argument doesn't hold much weight.
Look up how many old people die monthly. It's part of life. Just because you think it's really cool to sacrifice the future of the young so old people can live a bit longer doesn't mean the rest of us agree. We are going to have an economic crisis soon enough, and YOU and people like you are responsible for it.
@ukhomeoffice The economy is already in shambles, the benefit system is balooning, and the governments bright idea is to bring in more people dependent entirely on the state? Are you mad.
@durial Love how the guy is fashioning himself as an "Investor", with a suited bulldog as pfp and all. All in on Vanguard ass and piss ETF. Follow for more insightful trades, perchance even a Footsy ETF.
@__shiningstarr You do realise you have to keep a certain image while working corporate. Yes, I imagine Jamie Dimon wants people to think about JPMorgan as a rubbish dumping bin stealing bank. Truly makes people feel secure in their investments.
It doesn't prove anything except that sugar has energy. You can stick a red hot spoon into lard or protein powder, both more than likely catch fire.
This is just some stupid guy thinking he's smart. I assume he believes that sugar is unhealthy because chemicals are flammable and are usually made from various oil products and such. But that's all guess work. What some moron believes will always be a mystery.
@volkishgael@TakeThiamine It shows that organic matter like sugar is combustible so you don't stick a red hot spoon up your ass, and as such catch fire, I believe.
@MedianEarnerOli@cromwellagain@LeftNatLeft Think for once in your life thicko. If you're renting you by definition cannot afford to buy. Congratulations all rentals will belong to private equity, and they all will charge whatever they want.
"more social housing" isn't the answer. UK is already like the 3rd in the world in social housing. At the end of the day someone has to pay for it. I don't want to, nor great many people. You do, so we should just add an extra £1000 quid on your bill monthly and be done with it, because you clearly want to pay for it. Sure let them live there but don't increase the tax on the people who couldn't care less, when people like you want to pay for it.
If you can't afford to live there move somewhere cheaper. What you get is 8 people paying 2000 a month and 5% extra on their yearly council tax ad infinitum and 2 people Pepe paying 900 quid. Yet according to you this is fair that some people struggling are paying more so poor Anne or whomever can live above har station.
Also opening up of these council properties would push the rental prices down, as it would increase supply, so the poor sucker next door would only pay 1800.
There shouldn't be subsidised housing in the first place. If a council has to buy a house in an open market and let it out for 30% of market rates, inflation included it will take them some 200 years to make money on the property thicko.
It's not Joe Public's problem that there's millions of people that need subsidising, with the taxpayer himself getting no tangible benefit in the yearly increase of the tax bill.
Because the council will make negative money during their lifetime of renting. The council paid full rate for the property and are charging tenants way below the market rate. Hence your council tax has to increase to pay the difference.
You are actually a good example why things are going to shit, because you don't even have a basic idea of how money works.
@TheWinterRoad@matkinsj I would hardly call 30k worth of renovations "redecorating". Get a couple money plants and a painting replica, don't redo the whole kitchen. You can't be this clueless.