New Band Aid release for Ebola

[eFestivals]

To be fair to the guy, he has massively raised awareness about Africa in the UK, and raised an enormous amount of money for African causes.

He has.

But if people like him weren't trying to justify the unjustifiable of their own position and what it causes onto others, just think how much more could be done.

Tho let's be clear, that's not solely a position of the rich. Everyone in the western world is riding off the backs of others, and pretending that throwing a few crumbs from our table more than covers the guilt we hold for what we cause.

[The Nal]

I'm pretty sure these people are donating too though? Maybe not Bono but i'm sure they aren't just walking into the studio, lying down vocals then walking out?

I personally see most of the criticisms to be conjecture, suggesting that these celebrities have done nothing to donate and instead we are doing all the donating?

Even if they are donating its pocket change. Fuck all of it actually makes it to the ground. They're starting to appear like vanity projects a bit, all this good work for "charidee".

Geldof does create awareness though which is all good. Can't argue with that at all. Good on him. 21st century tolerance levels though. People even get pissed off with genuine do-gooders!

As KM said, very much the "in" disease at the moment. Although bird flu is back so look out! We may get two singles this Christmas!

"And there won't be snow in East Yorkshire this Christmas time...... and tonight thank God its hen, instead of youuuuuuu......

*here all week etc etc

[Andre91]

I didn't realise that Zoella (the Vlogger) was in it. She's my cousin's girlfriend (my cousin is also a Vlogger who is doing very well for himself at the moment )

[Matt42]

I didn't realise that Zoella (the Vlogger) was in it. She's my cousin's girlfriend (my cousin is also a Vlogger who is doing very well for himself at the moment )

Your cousin is alfie deyes?

Even if they are donating its pocket change. Fuck all of it actually makes it to the ground. They're starting to appear like vanity projects a bit, all this good work for "charidee".

I never understand this argument, do you really think they are gonna donate their entire earnings to a charity? You wouldn't, so why would they?

yes (idk) 3,000 quid isn't a lot for them... but heck it's more than you'l donate.

[Andre91]

Your cousin is alfie deyes?

Sure is

[LondonTom]

Your cousin is alfie deyes?

I never understand this argument, do you really think they are gonna donate their entire earnings to a charity? You wouldn't, so why would they?

yes (idk) 3,000 quid isn't a lot for them... but heck it's more than you'l donate.

Why do the richer people supposedly pay more income tax?

Its much more effort for someone on minimum wage say, to donate a fiver, in that they will actually miss that money as it might mean they can't have a pint that week or maybe even missing out on food.

Where as the multi millionaire might not be able to get interest on that 3k sitting in the bank

[gary1979666]

If you really want to help the needy, the apparently someone has set up a justgiving page to help Mylene Klass to pay her mansion tax.

[russycarps]

If you really want to help the needy, the apparently someone has set up a justgiving page to help Mylene Klass to pay her mansion tax.

I saw that "debate". squawking the same thing over and over while the other person is trying to talk is not how you conduct a debate.

The hateful tory sow.

[LondonTom]

I saw that "debate". squawking the same thing over and over while the other person is trying to talk is not how you conduct a debate.

The hateful tory sow.

Yeah but shes a proper working class single mother obviously

[lost]

She rents apparently so won't pay it. Ed seems to have enough problems with his own MPs coming out against it. Dianne Abbott and Glenda Jackson seem quite worried about their seats.

[LondonTom]

She rents apparently so won't pay it. Ed seems to have enough problems with his own MPs coming out against it. Dianne Abbott and Glenda Jackson seem quite worried about their seats.

I am shocked to my core that Dianne Abbott, who sent her son to private school is against the maision tax. Shocked to my core!

(Doesn't she also want the Mayor of London job to? Could be why I think!)

[eFestivals]

She rents apparently so won't pay it. Ed seems to have enough problems with his own MPs coming out against it. Dianne Abbott and Glenda Jackson seem quite worried about their seats.

Is it that the Labour party are morons, or do they have to be morons to be in step with the electorate?

Bring back the old rating system. If it's worth doing it's worth doing properly.

[eFestivals]

She rents apparently so won't pay it.

Yeah, because landlords are known for giving things for free, and picking up extra costs themselves.

That's the same bollocks that was used to justify the poll tax and then the council tax - that has got us to where we are now - that renters aren't paying these things. It's stupidity of the highest order, especially when it comes from the mouths of arch-capitalists who know exactly how it works.

Edited November 19, 2014 by eFestivals

[lost]

Yeah, because landlords are known for giving things for free, and picking up extra costs themselves.

That's the same bollocks that was used to justify the poll tax and then the council tax - that has got us to where we are now - that renters aren't paying these things. It's stupidity of the highest order, especially when it comes from the mouths of arch-capitalists who know exactly how it works.

Jesus thats stupid even by your standards.. the rental market and buyers market are two completely different things each driven by demand for either purchases or rentals using your logic no landlord would ever go under because they can always pass increased costs onto their tenants? great I'm just off to buy a terrace house in Barnsley and rent it for 1 million a year

[eFestivals]

Jesus thats stupid even by your standards.. the rental market and buyers market are two completely different things each driven by demand for either purchases or rentals using your logic no landlord would ever go under because they can always pass increased costs onto their tenants? great I'm just off to buy a terrace house in Barnsley and rent it for 1 million a year

If you want to show me a business that doesn't pass on extra costs to it's customers, I'll show you a bankrupt.

Landlords go under because they over-extend themselves, and not for other reasons. It's a guaranteed profitable investment over the longer term.

[lost]

If you want to show me a business that doesn't pass on extra costs to it's customers, I'll show you a bankrupt.

Landlords go under because they over-extend themselves, and not for other reasons. It's a guaranteed profitable investment over the longer term.

"ove -extend" = either take on costs they weren't aware of or new costs appear which they weren't expecting. If they could pass these costs onto their tenants then that would bail them out.

For example during the crash in 2008 many landlords LTV's increased meaning higher interest rates when remortgaging so their mortgage may have say risen from £600 month to £800 month. Now if flats in their area were renting for £600 a month they couldnt just say oh well I'd pass my extra costs onto my tenant and raise their rent to £800 if there were numerous other similar properties on the market renting for £600 a month their tenant would just move out. The rent has to be close to the market level for that area whether an individual landlords costs increase or not.

Edited November 19, 2014 by lost

[eFestivals]

"ove -extend" = either take on costs they weren't aware of or new costs appear which they weren't expecting. If they could pass these costs onto their tenants then that would bail them out.

But the costs DO get passed onto the tenants, that's the bleedin' point!

When rates were abolished and replaced by the poll tax, did i get a rent reduction as a result? Did I fuck.

When the poll tax was abolished and replaced by the council tax, did I get a rent increase as a result? Yes i did.

And you say landlords don't work things to their own benefit? Don't make me laugh.

For example during the crash in 2008 many landlords LTV's increased meaning higher interest rates when remortgaging so their mortgage may have say risen from £600 month to £800 month. Now if flats in their area were renting for £600 a month they couldnt just say oh well I'd pass my extra costs onto my tenant and raise their rent to £800 if there were numerous other similar properties on the market renting for £600 a month their tenant would just move out. The rent has to be close to the market level for that area whether an individual landlords costs increase or not.

Did I say "landlords are exempt from all possible consequences of how they might over-extend themselves"?

[lost]

But the costs DO get passed onto the tenants, that's the bleedin' point!

When rates were abolished and replaced by the poll tax, did i get a rent reduction as a result? Did I fuck.

When the poll tax was abolished and replaced by the council tax, did I get a rent increase as a result? Yes i did.

And you say landlords don't work things to their own benefit? Don't make me laugh.

I obviously can't comment on individual cases I'm just explaining how the market works, You obviously didn't get a rate reduction in the first instance because as I said the market for rents is completely different to the landlords costs. In the second you could of easily given your notice I very much doubt every landlord in your area puts rents up by exactly the same amount on the same day. If you couldn't find cheaper? then you were obviously getting below market rent in the first place.

[eFestivals]

I obviously can't comment on individual cases I'm just explaining how the market works, You obviously didn't get a rate reduction in the first instance because as I said the market for rents is completely different to the landlords costs.

Bullshit. That would make landlordism the only capitalist act that's free of capitalism.

What a landlord charges in rent is not necessarily related to the costs of being a landlord at that time. That does not make it unrelated to landlord's costs; stop pretending that it does.

I very much doubt every landlord in your area puts rents up by exactly the same amount on the same day.

they do when the groundrules change for all landlords, as proven by when its happened.

If you couldn't find cheaper? then you were obviously getting below market rent in the first place.

yeah, cos of all economic scenarios, housing is the most like the free market in action, right?

Housing is the complete opposite. It's based around a finite/irreplaceable resource (land), and works via a rigged market that the govt controls (via the amount of land the govt releases for new housing) - the very same people as own the houses.

[lost]

Bullshit. That would make landlordism the only capitalist act that's free of capitalism.

What a landlord charges in rent is not necessarily related to the costs of being a landlord at that time. That does not make it unrelated to landlord's costs; stop pretending that it does.

they do when the groundrules change for all landlords, as proven by when its happened.

yeah, cos of all economic scenarios, housing is the most like the free market in action, right?

Housing is the complete opposite. It's based around a finite/irreplaceable resource (land), and works via a rigged market that the govt controls (via the amount of land the govt releases for new housing) - the very same people as own the houses.

Rental markets are driven by supply and demand like all other markets, there is a fixed amount of property on the rental market at any time. The rent is always in relation to similar of types of property on the market so the landlord can not pass on new costs as you suggested if it brings the property out of its price range.

Again I can't comment on your individual example though I'm sure your not making up it up to try and prove a point. In my case I always negotiated a 8 - 10% reduction on the original rent and then when the contract was up always negotiated a rise smaller than they wanted and sometimes by threatening to leave got it canceled all together. I can't understand the mentality of swallowing every cost a landlord tries to pass on. You must of been loaded.

[zero000]

Yeah but shes a proper working class single mother obviously

Does she shop at Iceland though?

[eFestivals]

Rental markets are driven by supply and demand like all other markets

And the investment a landlord makes is also driven by supply and demand like all other markets.

Does a landlord lose money? Nope, it's impossible for a landlord to do so, unless that landlord is a moron that over-extends themselves (because there are generally costs to carry in the first few years).

Again I can't comment on your individual example though I'm sure your not making up it up to try and prove a point.

Just like i'm sure that comment isn't trying to do the same.

Simple fact is: i've got experience of costs being removed from landlords, and costs being added to landlords. And when the costs were removed there was no one I knew who got a reduction, and when costs were added there was no one I know who did not have those costs added to their rent. Newspaper reports of the time will show this was the case everywhere.

Your line on this is a proven fallacy. The facts of what really happens do not lie.

I can't understand the mentality of swallowing every cost a landlord tries to pass on. You must of been loaded.

Do fuck off, eh?

The choice was pay it or be homeless. There was no opportunity to avoid paying.

Edited November 20, 2014 by eFestivals

[lost]

And the investment a landlord makes is also driven by supply and demand like all other markets.

Does a landlord lose money? Nope, it's impossible for a landlord to do so, unless that landlord is a moron that over-extends themselves (because there are generally costs to carry in the first few years).

Just like i'm sure that comment isn't trying to do the same.

Simple fact is: i've got experience of costs being removed from landlords, and costs being added to landlords. And when the costs were removed there was no one I knew who got a reduction, and when costs were added there was no one I know who did not have those costs added to their rent. Newspaper reports of the time will show this was the case everywhere.

Your line on this is a proven fallacy. The facts of what really happens do not lie.

Do fuck off, eh?

The choice was pay it or be homeless. There was no opportunity to avoid paying.

Then the only evidence you can provide for your statement that a landlord doesn't absorb costs and can always pass them onto their tenants Is yourself?

Whilst in the real world in 2007 so many landlords were unable to pass their costs onto their tenants that they defaulted on their loans and whole banks like the Bradford and Bingley went under.

Still don't believed me? Log onto any landlord forum and find threads related to landlords still tied to the governments bad bank. SEVEN years later there are still landlords unable to pass on their fulls costs to their tenants and so unable to pay off enough capital to move their loans. These people clearly exist making your statement factually incorrect.

[russycarps]

the best thing that ever happened during the financial crisis was the amount of landlords who got fucked right in the arsehole.

owning more than one home is, to paraphrase proudhon, theft.

[lost]

the best thing that ever happened during the financial crisis was the amount of landlords who got fucked right in the arsehole.

owning more than one home is, to paraphrase proudhon, theft.

There are some pretty brutal stories out there. Landlords having to take 2nd and 3rd jobs to cover their costs and being subjected to stasi like interviews once a month where the bank tries to find part of the contract you have broken so that they can demand full payment back or repossess the house. Not that I have much sympathy either.