Forgive me if I don't consider some of SN's posters among the world's intellectual elite and hence don't hold their opinions in that high regard

 

Option 1 then

 

You don't seem to have much respect for a lot of the SN users and make it known that you think SN doesn't deserves much of your time. You also don't seem to like the newer Subaru cars so why bother?(Genuine question)

 

Well I still like the older Subaru cars and do have a lot of time for a small number of SN posters. Occasionally there are threads on here that can make you laugh and/or cry and generally entertain although they are becoming less frequent these days!

I guess there is some nostalgia there too. This place was fantastic in the early 2000s

PS Don't worry it's not just SN, I don't have much time for most people ... prefer animals to most human beings to be honest!

 

What association? If you open an ISA you are avoiding tax.

 

If anyone who regularly had someone sleeping in their doorway of their home, they would unsurprisingly get p!ssed off with it and will do something about it, be it studs in the ground or some other less subtle form of deterrent or calling the authorities. But the point is, you'd move them on and stop them from coming back. I doubt anyone would actually invite them in to their home or regularly escort them to a homeless shelter. The property owner is only doing what everyone else would do and everyone has a right to protect their property and the safety of the occupants or family, especially if the unfortunate is a habitual drug user leaving needles, or rubbish or excrement there and who may pose a potential threat to their own or family's safety.

 

This keeps being bandied about on this thread, but that is not the point I am making. I am simply saying that it is a pretty mean spirited solution to the symptom of a problem and maybe investing time and money as a society in solving the actual problem would be better than dreaming up these sort of things!

 

Sure I agree with that sentiment, but what is this property owner to do in the mean time? Look after the interest and safety of the tenants or suffer the wrath of twitter users in who in any event likely do the same in the same situation. This problem will never get solved, there will always be homelessness and there is nothing you or I or anyone else can do to fix it. We pay our taxes to the Governement and to our local councils and we give to charities in the hope the money given/paid will go someway to ease the plight of those unfortunate who don't have homes to go to, that is the reality.

 

I doubt the property owners give a toss about the occupants since it's a block of flats many which are probably BTL or at least leasehold.

The owners are treating the homeless like vermin; unwanted objects which must be banished to protect their Holy profit.

Nice prejudice against the homeless too.

 

Surely though if it has reached a level whereby this sort of thing is required then it is time the government took the situation seriously. I am not bashing the Tories btw as Labour were just as bad, but policies like care in the community have not worked, quite the opposite.

I am sorry to keep banging this drum, but surely there is something fundamentally wrong with a country that can find the money to spend on fighting other country's wars or giving overseas aid out like it is confetti yet cannot find the resources to put a roof over the head of some of its own population or am I wrong?

 

FFS TDW, change the f'ing record. You have know idea what the property owner gives or doesn't give a toss about. You make a lot of unsubstaniated assertions regarding property owners and are very much part of your own problem since you choose to support the "profiteering" landlords which in turn makes you no better. I doubt you give a f*ck about the homeless any more than anyone else as clearly you have used this story for nothing more than another opportunity to basically slag of landlords. Whilst you failed to dodge paying your taxes, the intention was there and have in the past chose ply your trade to facilitate the massive profits of energy companies who charge high consumer prices both of which would have gone someway to adding to the homeless problem. Rather than speculating on a housing crash, which ironically would further add to the homeless problem, go and buy a house and stop supporting the landlords, if only to stop your incessent whinging.

 

How does the provision and maintenance of a house/flat for those who are unable/unwilling to buy themselves not constitue providing a service?

I can't help feel that your apparent disliking of the BTL scheme is warping your common sense slightly.

 

How is it a service?

You can rent out a flat without leaving your sofa or doing anything other than the occasional communication with your letting agent.

So what is the landlord actually doing in return for the money?

Mowing someones lawn is a service. Sitting on a sofa isn't.

 

I pay rent to the landlord because the law says I must, not because I choose to support them.

I've already said I don't work for an oil company.

I have the same exchange relationship with them that you do.

As for 'dodging' my taxes doesn't nobody here have an ISA?

 

Keeping the place maintained, end of discussion

Next subject

 

Personally, I would not want my house/apartment block to be attractive to night sleepers in the interests of my and my family's safety, and although carrot is better than stick, either is better than nothing in this respect.

Yes it is sad that people sleep on the streets, but lets have that conversation when you are not asleep on my doorstep, and have that conversation in parliament/town hall.

 

Looks like a nice free back massager...

Ohh the joy of having a nice supple back!

 

The law doesn't say you have to rent. You have the means to buy a property for yourself, but you choose to rent thereby supporting the profiteering landlords.

I never said you did.

That wasn't how you were trying to dodge tax.

 

Never thought of that! You do have a point. Good for scratching their unbathed backs as well. I think homeless peeps would like it, after all. Every cloud has a silver lining, as they say.

 

Seeing that picture I Couldn't help but think of the amount of money that was put into the Millennium dome (£789 million according to the national audit) which was intended as a celebration of our achievements as a society in the year 2000.

It's now 2014 and we're resorted to the kind of countermeasures we use to stop pigeons perching on statues to stop homeless people from taking shelter in doorways.

Rhetorical statement? Maybe. But can't help but think that somewhere we've gone very wrong as a society!

 

The Millenium dome project turned out to be a failure, which is somewhat poetic.

 

I'd only have to rent money off the bank to fund a house. Either way the law is that I must pay someone.

'Dodging' tax with ISA's or living overseas is the same in essence.

 

Quite! Although new labia would have simply argued that it was a complete success and that you are just not "on message"

 

Service provision is often an economic activity where the buyer does not generally, except by exclusive contract, obtain exclusive ownership.

 

The whole basis of your arguement is with landlords and rentiers and nothing to do with the law. Like I said, no one is forcing you to rent, certainly not the law. If you see paying a mortgage the same as paying rent to a landlord, why are you even looking to get into the property market?

At end of the day no one is going to give you house for free, you have to pay someone, so rather than go whinging and blaming others and the law for your situation, why don't you take some responsibility for your own situation and do something about it instead of festering in it. This is another example of a failing in some people, there's always someone else to blame for their predicament.

BTW there's a huge difference between a HMRC endorsed savings scheme and living abroad to dodge tax!

 

There you go, renting a house isn't an 'activity'.

 

HMRC will endorse you living overseas and thus being non-resident.

 

Of course it is, you are providing an active service to your tenants.

 

roll your eyes all you like, I don't have a choice other than to purchase petrol to get about in this modern world we live in, you do however have a choice who you ply your trade with.

Oh and I noticed how you dodged the last part of my post.

 

I've already proved it isn't a service because nothing is actually being done just for the 'rent' alone.

It's like If I made you pay me to breath the air. Would I be 'providing' a 'service'?

You yourself said a service is an 'activity'. But the landlord is paid rent in return for NOT doing an activity...i.e., not kicking you out of their house.

FYI I concede that some of the arguably some of the money pays for upkeep, insurance etc, but it's money which comes out of the Tenant's pocket anyway!