Road the disaster- Resumed

[SteveW]

I don't know if there is a solution. Doing the above isn't fair on the children, but might stop the parents (and others who see the risks). Doing nothing means they will just carry on. What's needed, is a way of punishing the parents without causing problems for the children.

Maybe simply requiring the long term unemployed to work in teams cleaning up the local area - picking litter, removing graffiti, etc. If childcare is a problem then at least for couples, they can work in shifts. Single parents where the other parent is known can do the same. Single parents where the other parent is not known, findable or is a danger could be checked and teamed up with other single parents.

It's probably unworkable for many reasons, but at least worth considering.

SteveW

[SteveW]

I don't object to those working for low wages (or even short hours where they have caring responsibilities) having their wages topped up by benefits to something that most people would consider a still poor life. I do object to those who have simply chosen not to work at all.

SteveW

[SteveW]

It's hardly your own fault if you were born with low intelligence and ended up as a basic wage packer on a production line is it?

SteveW

[John Williamson]

It is still done in some cases. I am currently arranging a tenancy agreement with a known bad payer, and the letting agent says that rent can, if agreed by all involved, be paid direct to the landlord/ agent, as long as a valid reason such as excessive arrears exists.

The normal system now is to let the tenant handle it directly.

[Jethro_uk]

How about children get randomly swapped at birth ?

[Jethro_uk]

In which case the system was already broken. Surely it can't be difficult to know when a tenant has moved out. In nothing else they must have notified *someone* official of their change of address just to carry on getting their benefit letters.

[docholliday93]

Yes, I was surprised no-one else commented!

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Even more older children looking for adoptive parents? Excellent idea - not.

[Tony Bryer]

And no doubt is approved of by HMRC

[Tony Bryer]

Uh, £1200pcm is £14,400 a year, or 5.76% gross. Here in Melbourne houses in less desirable areas fetch around 5-6% gross, those in blue chip inner suburbs 3%. Why would you invest in the latter? Because there's a presumption of higher capital gains over a period which are taxed at half your income tax rate.

Here in Australia we have a bizarre (to a Brit) treatment of BTL for tax. For starters you can deduct depreciation on fixtures and the building structure and if you end up losing money on your BTL you deduct the loss from your other income effectively getting back 30/40% (or whatever) of it. So if rent

- (expenses + interest) = -$2000 but can also claim $3000 depreciation you've lost $5000 on paper, 40% tax refund $2000 leaves you square. Virtually all economists reckon this is a dreadful policy that just inflates house prices but so many people benefit from it that changing it is near politically impossible.

[harryagain]

Give us an example.

[harryagain]

Aren't you full of socialist shit/urban legend?

[dennis]

That doesn't make you poor. It makes you more careful with how you spend you cash. I was brought up in a family where my dad wasn't skilled (he was quite bright though) and we managed. He was never well paid.

[dennis]

Its called the daily mail but you can't buy it on Sunday.

[Adrian]

One of us is.

What's that got to do with the ability and process to legally migrate to a country?

No, it isn't. It's a SCHENGEN border.

Did you actually bother to read the page you linked to?

It explicitly states that most borders are unmanned, and there are no passport checks. It explicitly states the "car entry licence" you mention is a motorway vignette, the same as are required in several other EU countries, whilst some - including the UK - have point-of-use tolls instead.

[Adrian]

It's been done MANY, MANY, MANY times over the years.

But let's take their major story of today, shall we?

Joan Edwards, the elderly lady whose somewhat badly worded and ill- advised will bequeathed £520k to "the government of the day". _HER EXECUTORS_ interpreted that as a donation to the party/parties. Yet the Wail suggest - in so many words in the first sentence of the website article's headline - that the parties "robbed her from beyond the grave". Since she had no family, merely dying intestate would have effectively left her entire estate to the exchequer. The identity of the executors is given as two companies of solicitors, who will have charged (heavily) the estate for their role in administrating the will, which wouldn't have happened if she'd not bothered with the will in the first place.

[Huge]

A *tiny* bit exaggerated. It's about 98% rabble-rousing sensationalist over-spun guff bordering on outright lies.

[Andrew May]

Probably none. However the thing that people seem to overlook is that buy-to-let is probably the only leveraged investment that most people are allowed to make.

If I went to my bank and told them that I had 100,000 pounds to invest and would they lend me another 150,000 so that I could buy shares in Tesco they would show me the door. Ask them for it to buy a buy-to-let property and they will show me the place to sign.

[John Williamson]

That's because the intrinsic value of Tesco (Or, indeed any other) shares is the scrap value of paper that they are printed on, while if there's a problem, it's extremely unlikely they won't be able to get their money back by forcing a sale of the house. You might not get any of your money back, but they don't care about that.

[Tim Streater]

Cos they know that Labour will get back in again at some point and again there will be uncontrolled immigration, leading to another housing shortage, leading to higher house prices.