@implausibleblog Very misleading. How many of those estimated 999 have/had a main residence where they were paying council tax? You don’t know, and yet you claim they ALL made the same mistake. I think fair to assume that the majority of the boats at the marina are used for leisure purposes.
@PF_17_@Cup_of_TViv@DavidWe75281836@trevelyanism@implausibleblog@ZackPolanski You’d have to consider how that would affect the number of properties available for rent. The vast majority of rentals have a buy-to-let mortgage on them. If that stops tomorrow, who will buy those properties and how many people will be homeless?
@PF_17_@Cup_of_TViv@DavidWe75281836@trevelyanism@implausibleblog@ZackPolanski Most landlords “with less money” will already have full time jobs. When they became landlords they probably could afford it. Their only fault would be not predicting that some fool in the future would prevent them increasing their sales (rent) inline with costs.
@drivenbylxght@trevelyanism@implausibleblog@ZackPolanski Why two extremes? We can’t find a solution somewhere in the middle? Regulate and ensure no one is taking the piss. But landlords shouldn’t be forced into making a loss by new legislation. If costs (mortgages) go up then sales (rents) usually do too. Not all landlords are bad.
@drivenbylxght@trevelyanism@implausibleblog@ZackPolanski You’re talking retrospectively now, and that I can agree with. That’s exactly what will happen. Landlords won’t be able to afford it and they’ll sell. The tenant will need to find somewhere else, could be more expensive. Add moving costs etc. Nobody wins.
@drivenbylxght@trevelyanism@implausibleblog@ZackPolanski That doesn’t make sense. They can afford it. But if they’re told they can’t raise the rent if their costs double or triple then of course it’s not going to be viable. Any business would be the same.
@Cup_of_TViv@DavidWe75281836@PF_17_@trevelyanism@implausibleblog@ZackPolanski Isn’t that the point? They probably could afford the property when they bought it. But then the goal posts are being moved. The mortgage could go up £500 a month and they won’t be able to recoup any of that. Some will have to sell and the tenant is homeless. Nobody wins.
@Originsingamer@DavidWe75281836@PF_17_@trevelyanism@implausibleblog@ZackPolanski Your example uses a 1% mortgage deal over 30 years. Not really genuine, is it? At 5%, which is far more realistic, the monthly repayment is £1045. You’d already be losing money each month without considering maintenance, insurance, management fee etc.
Amorim was sacked for standing up to the board, not for results.
If you are celebrating him being sacked, you need to think about that.
Good luck to the new manager (whoever that may be).
He’s got no chance with this toxic fanbase.
#MUFC#ManUtd
@Traighbon08 @Unknown403exe @LondonEconomic It’s not always about what YOU need. He had the opportunity to set not only himself up for life, but his kids too. Who wouldn’t want that for their family? He wasn’t “given” anything. In fact, he’s “given” several million to UK homeless charities.
@bambibristol He’s been wealthy for over a decade, so clearly it’s not about (fair) contribution. He could have left a long time ago. I wonder what changed…
@NikBoyle@GBNEWS Gary was a Director of the company for over 7 years. He still won’t be liable as it was a limited company, but he wasn’t just an investor, as you claimed.
@Pete_Dev@RidgeandFrost@WilfredFrost@SophyRidgeSky You’re assuming the pub is open 365 days and makes at least £46.57 profit from every table. Both of those are very unlikely. Pubs can’t affect their bottom line by £17k+ simply by accommodating one additional table per day. If only.