Agreed. I was merely pointing out that this was why it was possible to get better return on buy-to-let than elsewhere. And, of course, you have made the point that the downside is less because you always have something left.
Agreed. I was merely pointing out that this was why it was possible to get better return on buy-to-let than elsewhere. And, of course, you have made the point that the downside is less because you always have something left.
Update headline on the "Wail": Tories and Lib Dems shamed into handing back £500,000 they 'robbed' from dead spinster after she bequeathed it to the 'government' - NOT political p arties.
Which is clearly what she intended - so a result for the Mail ?
Simon.
I'm well aware of the fact that there are a small number of people who don't function. However, I'm suggesting that the vast majority of people on benefits _can_, and that to treat them as if they can't is both doing them an injustice and inviting them to prove you right - as dumbing-down inevitably usually does.
But doesn't affect their ability to manage their own lives.
So, in your view, the majority of those on benefits are unable to manage their money responsibly?
Because, if they can, then that "temptation" isn't an issue.
Yep. Merely the percentage and the degree differ.
Not hugely. A fact is a fact. The distance between the facts of a story and the spin placed on it is tangible. The _effect_ on the story is where bias may differ based on your PoV.
Depends on the disability.
I've a feeling you think those on benefit have a nice easy life with more than ample money.
It's easy to manage when your income exceeds your necessary outgoings.
And, as ever, as story moves inexorably onwards...
The executors were, indeed, a firm of solicitors. They've now released a pr ess release stating that they also drew the will up, and - explicitly - tha t at the time, they clarified her intention.
That intention WAS to give to the political party.
So. What kind of a result has the media "won" now?
(My news server's shat the bed, and doesn't seem to have posted the earlier posts on this - apologies if it comes through multiple times)
It's clearly *not* what she intended, so a complete f*ck-up by the Mail and exposure of Labour as cynical opportunists (as if we needed that confirming).
By saying 'to the government in power'? If it was meant to go to a party, surely you'd say 'to the party in power'?
The release says 'whichever political party formed the Government at the date of her death', which seems reasonably clear, and you'd hope that they were at least as clear in the drafting of the will.
SOP, then.
Quite a lot of workers have been managing on less income than many of those on benefits claim is too little.
At least the cap will begin to level things up a bit.
Do you actually know how much basic benefit is?
The basic benefit is very low, but it is increased by allowances for those that know how to work the system.
The family next door to me pay more rent than I can afford, have a better TV than I do, and seem to have more cash to splash than I do.
Neither of them work, and they have 3 children with another imminent.
They can't even manage their lives responsibly.
Exactly so. As were my parents.
Carrying an ID card/passport means you can be stopped and your identity checked any time, anywhere. Illegal immigrants can be arrested on the spot and deported.
I mean give us an example of a story in the DM that is untrue.
And, as ever, as story moves inexorably onwards...
The executors were, indeed, a firm of solicitors. They've now released a press release stating that they also drew the will up, and - explicitly - that at the time, they clarified her intention.
That intention WAS to give to the political party.
So. What kind of a result has the media "won" now?
Now, does that seem likely? You can imagine someone giving there money to one party or another but not to both. You can't support labour and tory, you are one or the other. So that sounds bollocks to me. Sounds like the solicitors pulled a fast one there.
P'raps the UK should consider introducing them...?
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.