Britain's richest MP forcing people from their homes!

[lines 10]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/10/millionaire-tory-mp-tenants-estate-flats-richard-benyon

 

That's a residents assumption / expectation!

 

However, that is more in line with other rents in the area, the average being £2,000.

[Cyclone 10]

I think you will find its very relevant. The whole focus and title of this thread totally misleading.

 

The MP in question is NOT forcing people out of their homes. Private rent is charged at a rate for a set period. When that period expires the rate may either go up, go down or remain the same. As a tenant its your decision how you deal with it. Private RENTAL means just that. RENTAL - its not yours. You have no claim on it. You have no ownership of it. How many more times do I have to say this. If you cannot afford to stay there anymore - move.

 

The MP in question has a stake in a company which itself has a small stake in the properties concerned. A piddle amount of actual personal control (if any whatsoever) as to what happens to the business interests of the property. But of course he is the one being put under the witch hunt because he happens to be an MP. Its bullying.

 

90% that's 90% is owned by an investment group which has nothing whatsoever to do with the MPs business thus nothing to do whatsoever with the MP being subjected to this stupid thread.

 

If you have a 1/10 stake in something - how much actual power and decision making do you really think you have?

 

Shame on the council for selling these buildings to private owenership in the first place - YES

 

Shame on the complaining residents for reaping the rewards for years of massively subsidised rates when their neighbours have had to pay full whack - YES

 

Shame on attention seeking, hypocrite, multi millionaire, multi property owners like Band for sticking their beak into an issue which they neither knows about or have any involvement with causing a predictable tabloid poo stir and unnecessary attacks on an individual and business for doing exactly what businesses and investment groups are supposed to do - YES

 

Care to actually bother to flesh why you insist, despite the alleged irrelevance that its "still wrong" ??

 

No shame on the residents, if someone is offered a reduced rent, they'd be an idiot to turn it down.

[lines 10]

Is this a rent avoidance loophole that's being dealt with?

 

These people have been getting away with well below market average rent (almost 4 times as little as their neighbors)...? Some people would complain if a business wasn't paying the same tax as everyone else!!!

 

Tongue somewhat in cheek!

[Cyclone 10]

No, it's not a loophole and they haven't been getting away with anything.

[Bonzo77 13]

Is this a rent avoidance loophole that's being dealt with?

 

These people have been getting away with well below market average rent (almost 4 times as little as their neighbors)...? Some people would complain if a business wasn't paying the same tax as everyone else!!!

 

Tongue somewhat in cheek!

 

Not really comparable.

[lines 10]

Not really comparable.

 

How do you mean?

[Bonzo77 13]

How do you mean?

 

Comparing someone like Google, Facebook, Amazon or Apple avoiding tax to a family in subsidised property in London.

[martok 10]

Are you going to play nice, now your ban has been lifted?

 

---------- Post added 14-11-2014 at 00:17 ----------

 

 

There you go, good old 'rent a gob'! A small but significant victory! Will those share holders be worrying about losing their homes, jobs and family community? They won't even lose any sleep over the matter. What they might do is think twice before buying up any more subsidised housing in London

 

“With a stake of less than 10% Benyon Estate had only limited influence over decision making and policy. Our withdrawal means that the future direction of the estate will now be wholly a matter for the landlord.”

 

 

If they decide to demolish, or increase the rents without the improvements that were planned, will you still see it as a victory?

[lines 10]

Comparing someone like Google, Facebook, Amazon or Apple avoiding tax to a family in subsidised property in London.

 

So its not the principles of equality that bother you, its only size?

[Bonzo77 13]

So its not the principles of equality that bother you, its only size?

 

Inequality will always exist to a certain extent in a capitalist society. How many people do you know that do the odd job, cash in hand? I have no issues with that. However, when the wealth you have and the taxes you don't pay start to have an effect on the global economy?!

[lines 10]

Inequality will always exist to a certain extent in a capitalist society. How many people do you know that do the odd job, cash in hand? I have no issues with that. However, when the wealth you have and the taxes you don't pay start to have an effect on the global economy?!

 

So that was a yes then! You aren't bothered about inequality and crime as long as the perpetrators are poor!

[Bonzo77 13]

So that was a yes then! You aren't bothered about inequality and crime as long as the perpetrators are poor!

 

I don't condone it. How are you going to police every cash in hand job? Regulating big businesses is a necessity in my opinion. If someone gets caught evading tax laws, they should be prosecuted. I know big businesses done break the law, but they're privileged with many tax breaks and loopholes that ordinary folk don't have access to.