Parklife Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 I'd just like someone to clearly explain the immorality - I am am capable of understanding.... the thing that will save us from such p!sh pretendy moral outrage is when they find a number of Labour & Tory who do the same thing. Which they will and the press will ignore... for now I'd settle for a simple morality lecture.. I don't have any "pretendy moral outrage". I don't support a political party like it's a fitbaw team, in the way you clearly do. I'm able to look at things objectively, regardless of the party involved. She owned 17 properties, in order to personally profit from inflated rent prices (due to folk like her buying up multiple properties on a buy-to let basis. I think that is immoral. I'm bemused at how she managed to buy and sell a house on the same day, making £31k in the process. I'd really like to see more details on that. As on the face of it, it looks dodgy as fook. To me, if the SNP want to put themselves forward as a party of equality and social justice, then having someone like her represent them is incompatible with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Welcome to my world comrade Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UPROAR Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 possibly many MPs in both parliaments and in all parties are sh!tting themselves right now. Property is in demand in the rental sector because no-one can afford the deposit to buy and (until the SNP came along) no-one built any council houses. Ordinary people trying to save for their retirement are buying & renting property because interest rates are zero and stocks are too risky - thats how markets work. I lived in Germany for many years - more than 80% of people rent and most of that in the private sector. I had a great landlord - she was a nice person and always fixed things when needed. I dont support a single political party - you know nothing about me. so back to morality - in your moral world how many properties can I own before I become immoral ? (17 or fewer ?) - if I buy something today on eBay - even a house - and tonight someone offers me 30% more am I allowed to sell it in your moral world ? - how do I 'inflate' rent prices I think lots of people would like to know What about WeBuyAnyCar.com - they are buying cars at below market prices in order to give people the option of a quick, painless sale - would you allow this to continue ? how the hell do they sleep at night ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Posted October 5, 2015 Author Share Posted October 5, 2015 (edited) "I dont support a single political party - you know nothing about me." Edited October 5, 2015 by Alan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parklife Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Welcome to my world comrade The funny part is, they're unable to see just how ridiculous they all look. Mainly because all their fellow cult members on here back them up and tell them how right they (and the SNP) are on every single matter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 I don't have any "pretendy moral outrage". I don't support a political party like it's a fitbaw team, in the way you clearly do. I'm able to look at things objectively, regardless of the party involved. She owned 17 properties, in order to personally profit from inflated rent prices (due to folk like her buying up multiple properties on a buy-to let basis. I think that is immoral. I'm bemused at how she managed to buy and sell a house on the same day, making £31k in the process. I'd really like to see more details on that. As on the face of it, it looks dodgy as fook. To me, if the SNP want to put themselves forward as a party of equality and social justice, then having someone like her represent them is incompatible with that. I'd agree with you that there's something that doesn't smell right about some of these purchases but so far no-one has been able to explain just exactly what the dodginess is all about. There are two sides to every equation and to me the reason why there is an apparent excess in the private rental sector is because of the lack of provision of social housing either via councils or housing associations. A massive program of building new social housing would also help rein in the house prices as well. There is a place for the private rental sector, most notably for people who for a number of reasons don't want to commit to a long term tenancy, the problems not the private rental sector per se, it's the lack of any alternative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UPROAR Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 The funny part is, they're unable to see just how ridiculous they all look. Mainly because all their fellow cult members on here back them up and tell them how right they (and the SNP) are on every single matter the funny part really is you have a 'problem' with 'morality' but won't say exactly what your morality issue is with.... - renting out houses ? - rent at market rates ? - selling things at a profit ? I don't have any moral problem with any of these things. it seems the only moral problem you have is with the SNP - regardless of the issue, you'll say its 'bad' if the papers say its 'bad'... that seems to be as close to brainwashed as I can figure. c'mon - do us all favour - what part exactly do you have a moral issue with ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UPROAR Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 I'd agree with you that there's something that doesn't smell right about some of these purchases but so far no-one has been able to explain just exactly what the dodginess is all about. There are two sides to every equation and to me the reason why there is an apparent excess in the private rental sector is because of the lack of provision of social housing either via councils or housing associations. A massive program of building new social housing would also help rein in the house prices as well. There is a place for the private rental sector, most notably for people who for a number of reasons don't want to commit to a long term tenancy, the problems not the private rental sector per se, it's the lack of any alternative. agreed - there is your problem - but some think either its the SNP or Michelle Thomsons problem.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euan2020 Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 I don't have any "pretendy moral outrage". I don't support a political party like it's a fitbaw team, in the way you clearly do. I'm able to look at things objectively, regardless of the party involved. She owned 17 properties, in order to personally profit from inflated rent prices (due to folk like her buying up multiple properties on a buy-to let basis. I think that is immoral. I'm bemused at how she managed to buy and sell a house on the same day, making £31k in the process. I'd really like to see more details on that. As on the face of it, it looks dodgy as fook. To me, if the SNP want to put themselves forward as a party of equality and social justice, then having someone like her represent them is incompatible with that. There could be a 101 different stories on the $31K profit - could be a forced seller who was due to be repossessed, and they accepted below market rate, which was still better than an auction price with high sales charges could have been a middle house in block of 3, and the added value of the whole is greater than individual some supermarket might be buying all the houses, and this was explanation another reason could be that people have a better vision guys are buying houses in Cape Town, at market rates but knocking these down to build a house, in short the plot was worth more than the old standing house guys are building additional floors onto apartment blocks, so that in itself makes the apartment's houses worth more a week later, because corporate body etc will have to approve . 1 of my neighbours sold his farm around 20 years ago, the guy who bought it at least doubled his money within 1 year , by obtaining planning permission on out buildings and old sheds that the original owner would not have obtained - so again the vision brought the money, not the underlying property as it was at that time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angus_Young Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 I don't have any "pretendy moral outrage". I don't support a political party like it's a fitbaw team, in the way you clearly do. I'm able to look at things objectively, regardless of the party involved. She owned 17 properties, in order to personally profit from inflated rent prices (due to folk like her buying up multiple properties on a buy-to let basis. I think that is immoral. I'm bemused at how she managed to buy and sell a house on the same day, making £31k in the process. I'd really like to see more details on that. As on the face of it, it looks dodgy as fook. To me, if the SNP want to put themselves forward as a party of equality and social justice, then having someone like her represent them is incompatible with that. Not really that dodgy mate. You could pick up a repossession for absolute buttons and make that overnight no problem if you know what you are doing. A guy I know had his house re-possessed and it sold for £25k within 2 hours of it going on the market. Myself and another mate were going to go halfers on it as we knew that the house was perfectly fine and we could have made a small fortune on it. 3 bed ex-council house. Probably needed about £2000 worth of work done to it to make it liveable. I believe it went for £74k a month later. By the way I've not followed this story, and I also can't be ed reading all 14 pages so apologies if I've lost a bit of this in translation but I'm curious as to why you think that sort of practice is immoral? Is it not just a simple case of supply and demand like any other business, with prices set at the current market rate? I rent out a couple of properties myself. I tend to go just under market value so as to attract more interest, giving me more choice when it comes to getting tenants, however there are those that are in that game that are simply trying to maximise their profit. I don'vt really see the issue, it's a risk you take with any 'business' when you set your prices. If folk are willing to pay it, what's the problem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parklife Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 it seems the only moral problem you have is with the SNP - regardless of the issue, you'll say its 'bad' if the papers say its 'bad'... that seems to be as close to brainwashed as I can figure. ? You're either a moron or a fantasist. I back the SNP on the majority of their policies and I have only ever voted Green or SNP. So, please, quit with the pishy strawmen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UPROAR Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 You're either a moron or a fantasist. I back the SNP on the majority of their policies and I have only ever voted Green or SNP. So, please, quit with the pishy strawmen. you're very slippy - you keep saying you think it is immoral and not right but you won't actually say specifically what is is you object to... you must be a commie right ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 There could be a 101 different stories on the $31K profit - could be a forced seller who was due to be repossessed, and they accepted below market rate, which was still better than an auction price with high sales charges could have been a middle house in block of 3, and the added value of the whole is greater than individual some supermarket might be buying all the houses, and this was explanation another reason could be that people have a better vision guys are buying houses in Cape Town, at market rates but knocking these down to build a house, in short the plot was worth more than the old standing house guys are building additional floors onto apartment blocks, so that in itself makes the apartment's houses worth more a week later, because corporate body etc will have to approve . 1 of my neighbours sold his farm around 20 years ago, the guy who bought it at least doubled his money within 1 year , by obtaining planning permission on out buildings and old sheds that the original owner would not have obtained - so again the vision brought the money, not the underlying property as it was at that time To be fair Euan. Buying a property and then reselling the property on the same day to your husband for £31k more has nothing to do with the state the property was in or in fact probably anything to do with the property itself. Its a paper transaction, the reason for which hasn't been explained. However, it almost certainly had no bearing on the £65k that was paid for the property in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euan2020 Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Not really that dodgy mate. You could pick up a repossession for absolute buttons and make that overnight no problem if you know what you are doing. A guy I know had his house re-possessed and it sold for £25k within 2 hours of it going on the market. Myself and another mate were going to go halfers on it as we knew that the house was perfectly fine and we could have made a small fortune on it. 3 bed ex-council house. Probably needed about £2000 worth of work done to it to make it liveable. I believe it went for £74k a month later. By the way I've not followed this story, and I also can't be ed reading all 14 pages so apologies if I've lost a bit of this in translation but I'm curious as to why you think that sort of practice is immoral? Is it not just a simple case of supply and demand like any other business, with prices set at the current market rate? I rent out a couple of properties myself. I tend to go just under market value so as to attract more interest, giving me more choice when it comes to getting tenants, however there are those that are in that game that are simply trying to maximise their profit. I don'vt really see the issue, it's a risk you take with any 'business' when you set your prices. If folk are willing to pay it, what's the problem? this is not directed at you i do have an issue with the bank handing out buy to let mortgages to people who made no investment in tehir "business" other than the risk ie if the banks had not handing out over fueled borrowing, the guys couldn't have bought the houses, and could not have fuelled House Price Increase, which locks out people who then have to rent, which then escalates the rent increases. If you had money to invest, and took a share of the risk with the bank then fine, but 95% mortgages for buy to let, i personally think was a ridiculous attitude from banks, cos plenty of folk were willing to spin the roulette wheel thinking it was a done deal to make money - took some guys 4 years to get out of, what they now found to be bad investment because they thought "house prices always go up" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParisInAKilt Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 It's pretty simple for me A politican for a political party that claims it stands for social justice should not own 17 properties that they rent out. It's worrying that party leaders picked this person to stand for election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glasgowmancity Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 , but 95% mortgages for buy to let, When was that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angus_Young Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 (edited) this is not directed at you i do have an issue with the bank handing out buy to let mortgages to people who made no investment in tehir "business" other than the risk ie if the banks had not handing out over fueled borrowing, the guys couldn't have bought the houses, and could not have fuelled House Price Increase, which locks out people who then have to rent, which then escalates the rent increases. If you had money to invest, and took a share of the risk with the bank then fine, but 95% mortgages for buy to let, i personally think was a ridiculous attitude from banks, cos plenty of folk were willing to spin the roulette wheel thinking it was a done deal to make money - took some guys 4 years to get out of, what they now found to be bad investment because they thought "house prices always go up" Absolutely agree with every word of this mate, however doesn't really answer why her setting her rental prices are immoral. Could you defenitely get buy-to-let at 95% though? Didn't realise it was at that? Certainly you are looking at 20% - 30% these days which I think is a lot more sensible. Also don't think individuals could be criticised for taking advantage of idiotic lending, nor can I sympathise with people who borrowed irresponsibly. There were of course cleasr cases of mis-selling and the banks have a lot to answer for during that saga but there are plenty of people who knew exactly what they were doing and were incredibly naive. BTW I didn't realise she made that £31k from 'selling' to her husband so can obviously understand the suspicions. As said in my original post I haven't followed the story. Be interesting to see what explanation is given for that. Edited October 5, 2015 by Angus_Young Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deecie Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 you're very slippy - you keep saying you think it is immoral and not right but you won't actually say specifically what is is you object to... you must be a commie right ? To be fair he very clearly stated exactly what he thought was immoral about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pool Q Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Take a step back, ask yourself how you would respond to this if it was, say, Mundell who was involved? I'll wait and see what happens, Thomson may yet be able to explain all of this, but it really does smell. I was never keen on this business of bringing in folk from the Yes campaign, although I can see why it was done. There should at least have been serious background checks, not least due to the media we have here. It appears she was open enough about her business practices (which indicates, to say the least they are legal) but I wonder if someone in the party shouldn't have had the foresight to look at them and think 'maybe not'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UPROAR Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 To be fair he very clearly stated exactly what he thought was immoral about it. eh ? I missed it - as far as I could tell he thought owning property and renting it out was 'immoral' - that would put you somewhere to the left of Trotsky and many anarchists - its nuts... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deecie Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 eh ? I missed it - as far as I could tell he thought owning property and renting it out was 'immoral' - that would put you somewhere to the left of Trotsky and many anarchists - its nuts... Yes, you have missed it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UPROAR Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 why is to so hard to get a straight answer - enlighten me ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnie x Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Without knowing all the facts............ it is swiming like a duck, it looks like a duck and chances are it will sound like a duck. I read today she was dropped by Yes for Business before the referendum but allowed to keep her title, there must have been a reason for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 To be fair he very clearly stated exactly what he thought was immoral about it. I don't think he has done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 It's pretty simple for me A politican for a political party that claims it stands for social justice should not own 17 properties that they rent out. It's worrying that party leaders picked this person to stand for election. Do you believe there is some fundamental contradiction there or is it the number of properties you think is the problem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.5eeaf0fbe501ba3c868c32fd77caef1f.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.