National Living Wage

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35857947

It seems a lot will not get a rise/be included.

The meagre amount will hardly help anyway.

Bit of a red herring really.

Those in low paid employment should not be victimised like this IMO, at least they work.

Stormee wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-

It seems a lot will not get a rise/be included.

The meagre amount will hardly help anyway.

Bit of a red herring really.

Those in low paid employment should not be victimised like this IMO, at least they work.

the link is dead

It'll be interesting to see how this affects businesses and/or employees. They're calling this new thing the national living wage, but really it's just another tier of the minimum wage, so there will now be four tiers of minimum wage based on age.

It's strange really because employers can't discriminate on the grounds of age, and yet they can when it comes to pay. Will this mean that employers will choose those who are under 25 in order to save money? Will those under 25 complain that they're doing the same job as someone who is over 25 and yet they get paid less? That applies to all the tiers of course.

Here is the link.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35857947

apologiz.

I wonder how much the lesser abled in workshops will be paid/

Stormee wrote:I wonder how much the lesser abled in workshops will be paid/

What do you mean? The rate is the same for everyone, depending on their age of course.

The minimum wage is a bloody disgrace.

HoratioTarr wrote:The minimum wage is a bloody disgrace.

It's better than not having one though. With this new national living wage someone who is over 25 and who is on minimum wage will get an extra 50p per hour. That would be £20 week if they're doing 40 hours - not enough to get rich but it's a start. The danger is that landlords might think - ooooh, wages have gone up so I'll put the rent up.

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:The minimum wage is a bloody disgrace.

It's better than not having one though. With this new national living wage someone who is over 25 and who is on minimum wage will get an extra 50p per hour. That would be £20 week if they're doing 40 hours - not enough to get rich but it's a start. The danger is that landlords might think - ooooh, wages have gone up so I'll put the rent up.

Rents is another can of worms.   I think rents should be capped, particularly if people are on a low wage.   If you live alone, and on minimum wage, you can't afford to live.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's better than not having one though. With this new national living wage someone who is over 25 and who is on minimum wage will get an extra 50p per hour. That would be £20 week if they're doing 40 hours - not enough to get rich but it's a start. The danger is that landlords might think - ooooh, wages have gone up so I'll put the rent up.

Rents is another can of worms.   I think rents should be capped, particularly if people are on a low wage.   If you live alone, and on minimum wage, you can't afford to live.

I agree with you. I think it would be difficult to cap rents, but something should be done because housing costs are absurd these days.

OK Miss Ragga.

Please don't let this turn into another thread about immigrants/asylum seekers. It's one subject which is actually not about them - for a change.

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Rents is another can of worms.   I think rents should be capped, particularly if people are on a low wage.   If you live alone, and on minimum wage, you can't afford to live.

I agree with you. I think it would be difficult to cap rents, but something should be done because housing costs are absurd these days.

They should bring back 100 percent mortgages, so that young people can afford to buy.   Rents are high because nobody can afford to buy their own place.   you can pay £350 for a mortgage and £500 for the same kind of property in rent.   Madness.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I agree with you. I think it would be difficult to cap rents, but something should be done because housing costs are absurd these days.

They should bring back 100 percent mortgages, so that young people can afford to buy.   Rents are high because nobody can afford to buy their own place.   you can pay £350 for a mortgage and £500 for the same kind of property in rent.   Madness.

100% mortgages would probably push the price of houses up even more though. If they lowered rents via a rent cap, of course many people would complain - mainly those who bought to let. That's what's partly been pushing up prices though, so lowering rents might have a knock-on effect on house prices. Housing benefit caps should help as well.

Ok Miss Ragga.

I get so annoyed that ALL of our wealth is not spent on our OWN lowest well off countryfolk.

A friend of mine was doing OK with top ups of which I have no idea what they actually were.

He got a £1.06 rise in his REALLY meagre private pension which took him over a certain limit.
Now he has to pay for scripts which are many, spectacles, dentists, I cannot grasp it all but maybe you will understand.

He wishes he did not get the extra £1.06.

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

They should bring back 100 percent mortgages, so that young people can afford to buy.   Rents are high because nobody can afford to buy their own place.   you can pay £350 for a mortgage and £500 for the same kind of property in rent.   Madness.

100% mortgages would probably push the price of houses up even more though. If they lowered rents via a rent cap, of course many people would complain - mainly those who bought to let. That's what's partly been pushing up prices though, so lowering rents might have a knock-on effect on house prices. Housing benefit caps should help as well.

Then there should be a cap on how much you can sell your house for within reasonable limits.  The Government are quick enough to slap taxes on housing so why not slap a cap on charging £150K for a three bedroom semi in one area and £80K for the same kind of house in another.

Stormee wrote:Ok Miss Ragga.

I get so annoyed that ALL of our wealth is not spent on our OWN lowest well off countryfolk.

A friend of mine was doing OK with top ups of which I have no idea what they actually were.

He got a £1.06 rise in his REALLY meagre private pension which took him over a certain limit.
Now he has to pay for scripts which are many, spectacles, dentists, I cannot grasp it all but maybe you will understand.

He wishes he did not get the extra £1.06.

If he has several prescriptions he should get a pre-payment certificate Stormee. I have one - it costs £104 for one year, but you don't have to pay all in one go.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

100% mortgages would probably push the price of houses up even more though. If they lowered rents via a rent cap, of course many people would complain - mainly those who bought to let. That's what's partly been pushing up prices though, so lowering rents might have a knock-on effect on house prices. Housing benefit caps should help as well.

Then there should be a cap on how much you can sell your house for within reasonable limits.  The Government are quick enough to slap taxes on housing so why not slap a cap on charging £150K for a three bedroom semi in one area and £80K for the same kind of house in another.

I absolutely agree, but can you imagine the uproar if people were told they could only sell their house for a certain amount?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

100% mortgages would probably push the price of houses up even more though. If they lowered rents via a rent cap, of course many people would complain - mainly those who bought to let. That's what's partly been pushing up prices though, so lowering rents might have a knock-on effect on house prices. Housing benefit caps should help as well.

Then there should be a cap on how much you can sell your house for within reasonable limits.  The Government are quick enough to slap taxes on housing so why not slap a cap on charging £150K for a three bedroom semi in one area and £80K for the same kind of house in another.

People who actually buy their homes are entitled to get the best deal possible as it is really their own little business, nest egg.

Ya sound a bit jealous LT.

I dare not tell you I got a 4 bedroomed house given to me when I first got married.

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Then there should be a cap on how much you can sell your house for within reasonable limits.  The Government are quick enough to slap taxes on housing so why not slap a cap on charging £150K for a three bedroom semi in one area and £80K for the same kind of house in another.

I absolutely agree, but can you imagine the uproar if people were told they could only sell their house for a certain amount?

It's no more  unfair than inheritance tax.   House prices are dictated by areas, in other words, the land the house is built on rather than the house itself. House prices are also lower in areas where there's a lot of properties being rented. 

Only banks benefit from high house prices. High prices mean people have to take out larger mortgages for longer periods which mean more interest payments to the banks.

Back to the national living wage - some employers are choosing to pay the voluntary living wage, which is £8.25 per hour, or £9.40 in London. I don't know if they discriminate according to age, but those employers are to be applauded in my opinion. It means there will be more competition between potential employees to work for those companies of course, but then the companies which pay less might struggle to find employees as a result of that and raise their own rates.

I do wonder if the national living wage will affect some businesses which now to fork out more money for wages. They have had a fair bit of time to plan for it of course.

Stormee wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Then there should be a cap on how much you can sell your house for within reasonable limits.  The Government are quick enough to slap taxes on housing so why not slap a cap on charging £150K for a three bedroom semi in one area and £80K for the same kind of house in another.

People who actually buy their homes are entitled to get the best deal possible as it is really their own little business, nest egg.

Ya sound a bit jealous LT.

I dare not tell you I got a 4 bedroomed house given to me when I first got married.

LT?   I take it you mean me.   I have my own house.  That doesn't mean I can't empathise with those who struggle.  That's not being jealous.   That's having a bit of compassion.   Don't forget that even if you own a house, when prices go high, it means you cannot afford to move if you so desire.

Stormee wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Then there should be a cap on how much you can sell your house for within reasonable limits.  The Government are quick enough to slap taxes on housing so why not slap a cap on charging £150K for a three bedroom semi in one area and £80K for the same kind of house in another.

People who actually buy their homes are entitled to get the best deal possible as it is really their own little business, nest egg.

Ya sound a bit jealous LT.

I dare not tell you I got a 4 bedroomed house given to me when I first got married.

As you know Stormee, I'm not a leftie or a fan of Government interference generally, but this is one area where I think they should intervene. People are greedy, and it only takes a few people who are willing to pay a huge amount for a house for the prices to rocket.

Raggamuffin wrote:Back to the national living wage - some employers are choosing to pay the voluntary living wage, which is £8.25 per hour, or £9.40 in London. I don't know if they discriminate according to age, but those employers are to be applauded in my opinion. It means there will be more competition between potential employees to work for those companies of course, but then the companies which pay less might struggle to find employees as a result of that and raise their own rates.

I do wonder if the national living wage will affect some businesses which now to fork out more money for wages. They have had a fair bit of time to plan for it of course.

My attitude to that is if you decide to employ people, then you better be generating enough money to pay them fairly.  If not, then don't do it.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Back to the national living wage - some employers are choosing to pay the voluntary living wage, which is £8.25 per hour, or £9.40 in London. I don't know if they discriminate according to age, but those employers are to be applauded in my opinion. It means there will be more competition between potential employees to work for those companies of course, but then the companies which pay less might struggle to find employees as a result of that and raise their own rates.

I do wonder if the national living wage will affect some businesses which now to fork out more money for wages. They have had a fair bit of time to plan for it of course.

My attitude to that is if you decide to employ people, then you better be generating enough money to pay them fairly.  If not, then don't do it.

That could mean raising their prices to customers/clients/consumers though and/or making staff cuts.

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

My attitude to that is if you decide to employ people, then you better be generating enough money to pay them fairly.  If not, then don't do it.

That could mean raising their prices to customers/clients/consumers though and/or making staff cuts.

Well,, so be it so far as I'm concerned.  I don't mind paying more if some poor bugger can have a reasonable wage.

Also, most retail companies raise their prices at the drop of a hat.  They don't need an excuse.   Oh, look, we've had only 1 inch of rainfall in carrot country, let's put the price of carrots up and never let them come down.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That could mean raising their prices to customers/clients/consumers though and/or making staff cuts.

Well,, so be it so far as I'm concerned.  I don't mind paying more if some poor bugger can have a reasonable wage.

Nor do I, but it's amazing how penny-pinching some people can be.

The other thing is that companies would probably have to raise the salaries of those who are not currently on minimum wage, otherwise they'll complain they're not getting enough.

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Well,, so be it so far as I'm concerned.  I don't mind paying more if some poor bugger can have a reasonable wage.

Nor do I, but it's amazing how penny-pinching some people can be.

The other thing is that companies would probably have to raise the salaries of those who are not currently on minimum wage, otherwise they'll complain they're not getting enough.

It's not just about wages though.   Our whole society is based on greed, with food and rents being extremely high.  We live in a consumer society, with loans and debt being the norm for most people.   Many people live beyond thir means using plastic to pay for what they can't really afford.   It's almost impossible to live cheaply here.

One beef I have is supermarkets.   They load the cost of all their high falutin' equipment on the consumer.   I try to support smaller concerns. I get my eggs from a woman who keeps rescue battery hens on her allotment.  I get 30 eggs for £4.  Super fresh and tasty.  They are covered in shit too,, for that really authentic feel.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Nor do I, but it's amazing how penny-pinching some people can be.

The other thing is that companies would probably have to raise the salaries of those who are not currently on minimum wage, otherwise they'll complain they're not getting enough.

It's not just about wages though.   Our whole society is based on greed, with food and rents being extremely high.  We live in a consumer society, with loans and debt being the norm for most people.   Many people live beyond thir means using plastic to pay for what they can't really afford.   It's almost impossible to live cheaply here.

Absolutely, and we were just talking about rent/housing costs. I think that if those things were lower, many people would be able to live quite well. If rents go up in response to the living wage, it will all be a waste of time. Most other expenses are down to the individual - nobody is forcing them to go out and buy stuff they don't need or go on holiday every five minutes.

I think the living wage is a good thing generally in principle - nobody who is in full time work should need top up benefits like tax credits or housing allowance/benefit.

HoratioTarr wrote:The minimum wage is a bloody disgrace.

TODAY'S conservative parties -- the Tories,  Repub's, Liberals, Country party, the whole stinking lot - are all opposed to the very concept of "minimum wages"...

THEY all would prefer that they could set market rates for labour commensurate with the world's major producers -- for manufacturing industries that means China, India, Bangladesh, Vietnam, et al..

THAT MEANS between $5/hour and $5/day,  depending on what particular industry you work in.

THAT is what happens when political parties are owned by big business associations..
BIG business would prefer that average workers don't own houses, can't drive their own cars, can't even afford to travel on "public" transport...
THE VERY SAME big businesses where they believe their CEOs time is worth upwards of $10 million a year !

THIS same mob also doesn't want "full employment" -- maintaing a structural unemployment rate of around 5-6% puts the ball in the employers' court,  when it comes to negotiating employment contracts and conditions..

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

100% mortgages would probably push the price of houses up even more though. If they lowered rents via a rent cap, of course many people would complain - mainly those who bought to let. That's what's partly been pushing up prices though, so lowering rents might have a knock-on effect on house prices. Housing benefit caps should help as well.

Then there should be a cap on how much you can sell your house for within reasonable limits.  The Government are quick enough to slap taxes on housing so why not slap a cap on charging £150K for a three bedroom semi in one area and £80K for the same kind of house in another.

IT'S simply not on, to cap market prices for real estate  --  do you want to live in a "free market" economy in relation to land prices, or in a controlled market totalitarian state ?
You can't have it both ways..

HIGH rents come from a shortage of properties to let in a high demand markets.
UNAFFORDABLE house prices are largely a result of :
A shortage of suitable properties;
A shortage of available land;
Tax regimes that favour investors and property speculators, over and above your first home buyers;
Depressed wages over the last couple of decades for many average workers;
Ever rising costs in other essential commodities sectors ==  food, energy, transport, medicine...

MUCH, much better if governments were to address these problems first --
Rather than continually pandering to their corporate masters..

"100% Mortgages" are never a good idea !
Much better is the notion of raising as big a deposit as possible --  20% of a property's price is a good starting point, even more where possible --  and then paying off that loan as quick as possible..
BIG mortgages only play into developers, financiers and realtors pockets - they are never in the buyer's interests - especially not first home buyers...

The house building around here is massive right now.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Then there should be a cap on how much you can sell your house for within reasonable limits.  The Government are quick enough to slap taxes on housing so why not slap a cap on charging £150K for a three bedroom semi in one area and £80K for the same kind of house in another.

IT'S simply not on, to cap market prices for real estate  --  do you want to live in a "free market" economy in relation to land prices, or in a controlled market totalitarian state ?
You can't have it both ways..

HIGH rents come from a shortage of properties to let in a high demand markets.
UNAFFORDABLE house prices are largely a result of :
A shortage of suitable properties;
A shortage of available land;
Tax regimes that favour investors and property speculators, over and above your first home buyers;
Depressed wages over the last couple of decades for many average workers;
Ever rising costs in other essential commodities sectors ==  food, energy, transport, medicine...

MUCH, much better if governments were to address these problems first --
Rather than continually pandering to their corporate masters..

"100% Mortgages" are never a good idea !
Much better is the notion of raising as big a deposit as possible --  20% of a property's price is a good starting point, even more where possible --  and then paying off that loan as quick as possible..
BIG mortgages only play into developers, financiers and realtors pockets - they are never in the buyer's interests - especially not first home buyers...

BIG mortgages only play into developers, financiers and realtors pockets - they are never in the buyer's interests - especially not first home buyers...

That was my point. ^^^  Which I've already stated in previous posts.

Houses and flats and apartments are springing up everywhere. There's no shortage.   There is, however, a shortage of affordable housing for those who can't afford high rents or mortgages.   Landlords can charge what the hell they please and that's wrong IMO.    There should be some rating for flats like there is for council tax.  Why some greedy landlord can get away with charging £500 a month for some seedy filthy leaking apartment that's probably not worth £200 is wrong.

I think there is some kind of rent tribunal one can consult in the UK that determines how fair rents are.  But they seem not to be working.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Then there should be a cap on how much you can sell your house for within reasonable limits.  The Government are quick enough to slap taxes on housing so why not slap a cap on charging £150K for a three bedroom semi in one area and £80K for the same kind of house in another.

IT'S simply not on, to cap market prices for real estate  --  do you want to live in a "free market" economy in relation to land prices, or in a controlled market totalitarian state ?
You can't have it both ways..

HIGH rents come from a shortage of properties to let in a high demand markets.
UNAFFORDABLE house prices are largely a result of :
A shortage of suitable properties;
A shortage of available land;
Tax regimes that favour investors and property speculators, over and above your first home buyers;
Depressed wages over the last couple of decades for many average workers;
Ever rising costs in other essential commodities sectors ==  food, energy, transport, medicine...

MUCH, much better if governments were to address these problems first --
Rather than continually pandering to their corporate masters..

"100% Mortgages" are never a good idea !
Much better is the notion of raising as big a deposit as possible --  20% of a property's price is a good starting point, even more where possible --  and then paying off that loan as quick as possible..
BIG mortgages only play into developers, financiers and realtors pockets - they are never in the buyer's interests - especially not first home buyers...

BIG mortgages only play into developers, financiers and realtors pockets - they are never in the buyer's interests - especially not first home buyers...

That was my point. ^^^  Which I've already stated in previous posts.

Houses and flats and apartments are springing up everywhere. There's no shortage.   There is, however, a shortage of affordable housing for those who can't afford high rents or mortgages.   Landlords can charge what the hell they please and that's wrong IMO.    There should be some rating for flats like there is for council tax.  Why some greedy landlord can get away with charging £500 a month for some seedy filthy leaking apartment that's probably not worth £200 is wrong.

I think there is some kind of rent tribunal one can consult in the UK that determines how fair rents are.  But they seem not to be working.

HoratioTarr wrote:
"BIG mortgages only play into developers, financiers and realtors pockets - they are never in the buyer's interests - especially not first home buyers..."

That was my point. ^^^  Which I've already stated in previous posts.

Houses and flats and apartments are springing up everywhere. There's no shortage.   There is, however, a shortage of affordable housing for those who can't afford high rents or mortgages.   Landlords can charge what the hell they please and that's wrong IMO.    There should be some rating for flats like there is for council tax.  Why some greedy landlord can get away with charging £500 a month for some seedy filthy leaking apartment that's probably not worth £200 is wrong.

I think there is some kind of rent tribunal one can consult in the UK that determines how fair rents are.  But they seem not to be working.

THE property scene in London and other British cities is probably similar to what it's like in Sydney, Melbourne, New York, Los Angeles :

Sure there seems to be plenty of building going on -- but :
* most of it is often in the top half of the market - leading to an oversupply of 'executive' apartmente and 'McMansions' at one end;  but still not addressing the undersupply of "affordable housing".
* There is a gross surplus of unsuitable and unwanted flats and apartments, that nobody either wants - nor can they accept the grossly excessive and ambitious prices that greedy developers are asking..
* At the same time, the existing shortage of affordable and suitably located housing means that rents keep on rising..
* Changes to taxation and property laws that could make it easier for first home buyers to enter the market, and that might change the mix in the market, keep getting knocked back by politicians ==  most probably because so many of them, their friends and relatives, and their corporate backers, are taking advantage of the current status quo..

AND all to the detriment of the lower half of the real estate market.

AS LONG AS pele feel that they have no choice but to accept paying those usurious rents, then the longer the landlords will feel that they can get away with it !
IT'S the age old economic principle of "Supply and Demand" at work..
IS IT really worth taking that $100,000 job in the city if it's going to cost you double the living costs to move into the city, compared to staying in that $50,000 job out in the suburbs ?

IF ONLY enough people would stop thinking that they have to take what's on offer, the sooner that the worst of the landlords would stop continuously raising their rents, amd the greedy developers will trim their margins back to what they used to be 20 or 30 years ago..

AND LET'S NOT forget that it was the bundling of unconditional and unqualified "low doc" home mortgages to low income buyers, into 'Junk Bonds' being sold on the investment market,  that caused the so-called 'Global Financial Crisis'...
EVEN today, there are again shonky bankers, financiers and investment salesmen trying to sell Junk Bonds into the market now -- falsely claiming that it's not the same as a decade ago and that regulatory conditions have changed !

POTENTIALLY another "GFC" disaster in the making..

I watch a program on tv called "HOMES UNDER THE HAMMER" an Auction house sells property that is vacant. I see young couples at these Auctions desperate to buy a house even if it needs repair. They are nearly always out bid by landlords who want the properties either to sell on or rent out. Some of these landlords have scores of properties already and the greedy bastards will pay over the top to get more. Young people trying to get on the housing ladder have no chance.

I regret to say that most landlords are of Asian origin, i'm not being "racist" just saying how it is!

nicko wrote:I watch a program on tv called "HOMES UNDER THE HAMMER" an Auction house sells property that is vacant.  I see young couples at these Auctions desperate to buy a house even if it needs repair.    They are nearly always out bid by landlords who want the properties either to sell on or rent out.   Some of these landlords have scores of properties already and the greedy bastards will pay over the top to get more. Young people trying to get on the housing ladder have no chance.

I regret to say that most landlords are of Asian origin,  i'm not being "racist" just saying how it is!

exact same here except it ts old baby boomers mainly anglo/euro that started it, although in recent years the boom has been driven by overseas investment

LOL at wolfs 'out in the suburbs' I like most young people WISH we could afford the suburbs but I dont have a million bucks for a 40 year old average family home 30km-50km from the CBD
even on 100K a year I could not afford to buy in the suburbs an hour(40km) commute from Sydeny CBD.

@ Veya :

These days, the more affordable outer suburbs for Sydney city are around Gosford, Wyong, Cessnock, Wollongong, Nowra !!!

nicko wrote:I watch a program on tv called "HOMES UNDER THE HAMMER" an Auction house sells property that is vacant.  I see young couples at these Auctions desperate to buy a house even if it needs repair.    They are nearly always out bid by landlords who want the properties either to sell on or rent out.   Some of these landlords have scores of properties already and the greedy bastards will pay over the top to get more. Young people trying to get on the housing ladder have no chance.

I regret to say that most landlords are of Asian origin,  i'm not being "racist" just saying how it is!

IT'S the same around a lot of the world's larger cities,  nicko...


AS I suggested earlier above, the government could change the market by restructuring those tax policies that favour property investors and speculators over and above everyone else..

UNFORTUNATELY, most governments keep refusing to do so -- often because of their own vested interests in maintaining the 'status quo' in current real estate markets -- and at the cost of average everyday citizens, and especially first home buyers.
THE very people that they were, in theory and in principle, elected to serve..

Y'all are a bunch of lefty liberals!

At least by the standards of where I live ...

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:@ Veya :

These days, the more affordable outer suburbs for Sydney city are around Gosford, Wyong, Cessnock, Wollongong, Nowra !!!

they are not suburbs of sydney.
Plus once your over 90 mins and 60kms each way it becomes a bit unrealistic for long term commuting

I have bought in Tarago about 40km south of Goulburn.

nicko wrote:I watch a program on tv called "HOMES UNDER THE HAMMER" an Auction house sells property that is vacant.  I see young couples at these Auctions desperate to buy a house even if it needs repair.    They are nearly always out bid by landlords who want the properties either to sell on or rent out.   Some of these landlords have scores of properties already and the greedy bastards will pay over the top to get more. Young people trying to get on the housing ladder have no chance.

I regret to say that most landlords are of Asian origin,  i'm not being "racist" just saying how it is!

It's interesting that you've mentioned that programme nicko. I used to watch it because it's the sort of thing I like - people buying a rather dilapidated house and then doing it up nicely. However, I got bored with it because most of them bought a house and did it up to rent it out. They decorated the houses in a very bland way - magnolia and beige. There was no personality or character to any of the houses in the end, and it just seemed like yet another programme on how to make money. A bloke would come round afterwards to tell them how much they could make on rent.

Telling truth about Asians.

Why the hell are you defending yourself for telling the truth?

You wanna see vast areas of Coventry, Birmingham to see how they have turned them into disgusting sh**holes.
All they want is easy money, this is good business despite my abhorrence of them.
I imagine this is a way to 'legalise' drug money profits, turn it into brix and mortar.
They come here from a sh**hole and turn this country into a sh**hole.
Before anyone jumps down my throat,
GO AND SEE that which the sob sister leftiz and pc do gooders have done to OUR island.

The Asians are nearly all those luvlee adorable Pakistani people who throw a bucket of whitewash over the walls and even charge their own kind per head to dwell in these sh**holes.

THERE ARE NONE SO BLIND AS THOSE WHO 'WILL' NOT SEE.

veya_victaous wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:@ Veya :

These days, the more affordable outer suburbs for Sydney city are around Gosford, Wyong, Cessnock, Wollongong, Nowra !!!

they are not suburbs of sydney.
Plus once your over 90 mins and 60kms each way it becomes a bit unrealistic for long term commuting

I have bought in Tarago about 40km south of Goulburn.

SO then, what's that...

ABOUT a 3 - 3.5 hour commute each way  ?   


I couldn't afford an acreage around here anymore, so I would probably be looking around an hour or two north at some future time..  (Over the next decade or so, there's another 10,000+ building blocks coming onto the market around here -- there goes the neighbourhood..).
There's also some villages down around the Far South Coast and Snowy Mountains that still have fair-priced land available; (and how to deal with those freezing winters ?  Embrace the cold, and go skiing..).

Too expensive around here.

Most land goes to auction and it seems to be a trend to sell all sorts of property this way.

There are quite a few decent looking closed, deserted, run down pubs around here in the six which would convert into luvlee propertiz for anyone with a few quid..

Stormee wrote:Telling truth about Asians.

Why the hell are you defending yourself for telling the truth?

You wanna see vast areas of Coventry, Birmingham to see how they have turned them into disgusting sh**holes.
All they want is easy money, this is good business despite my abhorrence of them.
I imagine this is a way to 'legalise' drug money profits, turn it into brix and mortar.
They come here from a sh**hole and turn this country into a sh**hole.
Before anyone jumps down my throat,
GO AND SEE that which the sob sister leftiz and pc do gooders have done to OUR island.

The Asians are nearly all those luvlee adorable Pakistani people who throw a bucket of whitewash over the walls and even charge their own kind per head to dwell in these sh**holes.

THERE ARE NONE SO BLIND AS THOSE WHO 'WILL' NOT SEE.

There was a seemingly nice respectable Asian family living in a nice neat house.  Turns out they had a slave locked in the cellar for ten years.